(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT? 






m 



CLOSED 
STACKS 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not to be taken Irom the Library 
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



MAY 1 1996 

"^ * SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03476 4150 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/1minutes1988sanf 



MS" 

»2 



hlu SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT 

MAR 4 1988 

SAN FRANQlt»cO 

^Uftt If. I IHwnov 



MINUTES 



JANUARY 5, 1988 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

Presldtnt 

J. EDWARO FLEISHELL 

Vic«Pr«$ldtnt 

OR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

OON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California y<n^B 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

January 5, 1988 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 


AGENDA 
ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 
B. 




CALL TO ORDER 
ROLL CALL: 



c. 

D. 
E. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Resolution Awarding the Lease 
for Insurance/Business Service 
Center 

Authorization to Accept Bids 
for the Foreign Currency 

Boarding Area 'E' Newsstand 
Operating Permit 

Award of Contract No. 1767: 
Purchasing Contract Proposal 
No. 783 - Computerized Identi- 
fication Card System 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



88-0001 



PAGE 



88-0002 


3-4 


88-0003 


4 


88-0004 


5 



88-0005 



5-6 



Revised Five-Year Capital 
Projects Plan 



88-0006 



Bid Call : Contract No. 2024 
Carpet Replacement - Bldg. 8, 
1000, 676 and Other Airport 
Offices 



88-0007 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Award of Contract No. 1724: 
Runway 19L Blast Protection 



88-0008 



6-7 



8. Approval of Budget for Contract 
Year 1988/89 for O'Brien- 
Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc., 
Scheduling Consultant for the 
South Terminal Complex Recon- 
struction Program 88-0009 

9. Authorization of Contractural 
Agreement between Airport and 

the American Carousel Museum 88-0010 

10. Type II Modification: Contract 
No. 1564R - Rehabilitation 

Drainage Pump Station No. 1 88-0011 

11. Close Out Professional Services 
Contract with Esherick, Homsey, 
Dodge and Davis, Architect for 
Boarding Area 'B' - South 

Terminal 88-0012 

12. Travel/Training Request for 

Airport Representatives 88-0013 



CORRESPONDENCE: 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

January 5, 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Don Richards Stephens 

Absent: Z. L. Goosby 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 1987 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 87-0001 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

1 . Resolution Awarding the Lease for Insurance/Business Service Center 

88-0002 Resolution awarding Insurance/Business 

Service Center lease to Tele-Trip 
Company, Inc. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that one bid was received. A 
second bidder has submitted a letter of protest. According to staff, 
this bidder arrived late to the bid opening and had no bond. 

Minutes, January 5. 1988. Page 3 



Commissioner Stephens asked if this was the bidder who could not get 
a certified check. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business & Finance, responded 
that this prospective bidder did claim that he was unable to get a 
certified check. She said that when she spoke to him he claimed he 
had no business dealings in California and that banks in this state 
do not issue certified checks readily. She told the Commission that 
she pointed out to him that the winning bidder had submitted a 
certified check from his home state of Nebraska. She also told him 
that there were four other forms of security he could have used. Ms. 
Gittens also said that he was late and, in fact, did not have a bid. 
His partner, who supposedly had the other bid materials, was late for 
the bid opening. She felt his request had no merit and the lease 
should be awarded. 

Commissioner Stephens asked Ms. Gittens if the lease should be 
awarded in light of the amount the second bidder was offering. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that remained to be seen; staff never saw 
his bid documents. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked if there were any legal problems. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded none at all. 



Authorization to Accept Bids for the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease 

No. 88-0003 Resolution approving lease specifica- 

tions and authorizing Director to 
accept bids for the Foreign Currency 
Exchange Lease. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that there would be two locations, one 
on the upper level and one on the lower level of the International 
Terminal. He said that there is a proviso for mobile carts in order 
to meet unusual or unique circumstances. He told the Commission that 
values have been changed, as the bid package indicates, in response 
to comments by prospective bidders to our bid proposals. He 
recommended authorizing the bid. 

Commissioner Fleishell commented that it might be helpful to place a 
sign in the customs area by baggage claim Informing passengers that 
their currency can be changed just outside of customs. He said that 
in other countries, currency exchange operations are located In the 
customs area. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the foreign currency exchange 
operation could be located Inside customs. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this came up several years ago but customs 
would not allow it. He said that staff had a difficult time just 
getting a representative from Smarte Carte inside customs to change 
money for carts. He said that Customs has been very unresponsive to 
those types of requests. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he did not want to go through that 
again. He suggested that the best place to install the sign would be 
next to the arrivals board located at the carousels. 



Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 4 



Boarding Area 'E' Newsstand Operating Permit 

No. 88-0004 Award of a month-to-month permit to 

A. B.C. Cigar to operate the newsstand 
at Boarding Area ' E' . 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Airport has been involved in 
a protracted effort to secure a concessionaire for Boarding Area 'E'. 
It has been bid a couple of times and one successful bidder, Duty 
Free Shoppers, has been received. Because of the investigation being 
conducted on Duty Free's downtown activities, staff has been unable 
to secure the requisite approvals from the Board of Supervisors to 
move ahead. He said that this concession was expected to be in place 
at least six months ago. During that time both Aeroplex and Elson's 
have approached staff; one said that he could not continue, the other 
indicated that he would require a substantial rent concession from 
the Airport in order to continue. Staff has indicated to both that 
they are free to terminate their operations. He explained that in 
this interim period it is important to continue service to this area. 

Mr. Turpen said that this agreement is a 30-day permit to run the 
operation at 20 percent of gross revenues until such time as staff 
can conclude Duty Free's concession. 

Commission Stephens asked if A. B.C. wants a long term contract. 

Ms. Gittens responded that A. B.C. came in third on the Boarding Area 
'E' concession bid so she assumed they would be interested in a 
long-term relationship. 

Mr. Turpen said that if staff cannot consumate this deal with Duty 
Free, we would be obligated to re-bid the lease. He felt that at 
some point the questions with regard to Duty Free would be resolved 
and hoped that would happen within the next few weeks. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if A. B.C. is a local /minority company. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they are a local company and owned by 
women. He explained that A. B.C. will not be paying the $100,000-a- 
month minimum guarantee that Duty Free would be paying. 

Ms. Gittens added that in addition to the main store at the mouth of 
Boarding Area 'E', there is to be another store on the other side of 
Boarding Area 'E', one out on Boarding Area 'F' by United, and, the 
new space, all of which will be vacant. Boarding Area 'E' is the 
most critical location as it is about 70 percent of the. space. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked if a provision has been made to ensure 
that the departing concessionaire leaves all of the necessary 
fixtures in place. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that that Is a condition of their permit and 
has been verified by the Property Management staff. The only fixture 
they are taking is the cash register. 



4. Award of Contract No. 1767: 

Purchasing Contract Proposal No. 783 
Computerized Identification Card System 

No. 88-0005 

Mr. Turpen said that this is another step towards enhancing the 

Minutes, January 5, 1988. Page 5 



Airport's security system. If not the first, it is one of the first 
in the United States and will be a forthcoming requirement of the 
FAA. He said it is an excellent step for the Airport. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what areas will be secured and how 
wi 1 1 they be secured. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this system will control access through 
existing access points. It doesn't go beyond those areas to which 
access is currently prohibited or the perimeter which is the air 
operations area. He said that that secured perimeter exists today. 
This will enhance our abilities to control access through specified 
points on the Airport where employees have to go to get from the 
non-secured to the secured side. This is designed to do that as well 
as give the Airport accurate information as to who should be where on 
the Airport. It also gives the Airport the capability to immediately 
terminate anyone's access privileges without securing their I.D. 
card. This is a computer-based system designed to centralize 
information and control access through a legitimate access point. It 
is the first phase in what is contemplated as a multi-phase system. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would like to understand what the 
phases are and what the Airport is moving towards. 

Mr. Turpen responded that this is a complete project, however, in 
view of recent Federal requirements, there will be several other 
projects which will have to be installed. This system will cause 
everyone at the Airport to use the same I.D. card as opposed to the 
several I.D. cards that are currently used. 



5. Revised Five-Year Capital Projects Plan 

No. 88-0006 Resolution approving the Airport's 

revised-Five Year Capital Projects 
Plan. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is required to go before the airlines for 
review and Mr. Yuen indicates that they offered no objections. He 
explained that this simply outlines the Airport's anticipated plans 
for the next five years. All of these projects will come before the 
Commission for a vote. 



Bid Call: Contract No. 2024 

Carpet Replacement - Bldg. 8. 1000. 676 and Other Airport Offices 

No. 88-0007 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 2024 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bid when ready. 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

7. Award of Contract No. 1724 : 
Runway 19L Blast Protection 

Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 6 



No. 88-0008 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1724 

to O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the amount 
of $304,020.00. 



Approval of Budget for Contract Year 1988/89 for 0' Brien-Krei tzberg & 
Associates, Inc., Scheduling and Resources Consultant for the South 
Terminal Complex Reconstruction Program 

No. 88-0009 The contract between consultant and 

City requires a new budget for each 
12-month period. In anticipation of 
the reduced workload, the proposed 
budget represents a 62% decrease from 
the current budget. 



Authorization of Contractual Agreement between Airport and the 
American Carousel Museum 

No. 88-0010 Contract for $10,000 with the American 

Carousel Museum for the purpose of 
providing objects for the 1988 Holiday 
Exhibition in the North Terminal 
Connector Gallery. 



10. Type II Modification: Contract No. 1564R 
Rehabilitate Drainage Pump Station No. 1 

No. 88-0011 Contract modification of $27,000 to 

provide for repairing of pumps in 
Industrial Waste Pump Station. 



1 1 . Close Out Professional Services Contract With Esherick, Homsey, Dodge 
and Davis, Architect for Boarding Area 'B', South Terminal 

No. 88-0012 Resolution accepting work as 

completed, setting final contract 
price at $1,255,144.79 (amount 
awarded: $1,276,800.00), and closing 
out contract. Neither consultant nor 
City plans to claim against the other. 



12. Travel/Training Request for Airport Representatives 
No. 88-0013 

* * * 

G. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 
Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 7 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM. 




in Caramatti 
'Commission Secretary 



Minutes, January 5, 1988, Page 8 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEP T . 

MAR 4 1988 

SAN FRANClouO 



MINUTES 



JANUARY 22, 1988 
SPECIAL MEETING 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEfM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 












Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

January 22, 1988 
Special Meeting 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



A. 


CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 


ROLL CALL 


C. 


ANNOUNCEMENT B 


D. 


ITEMS INITIATE 


E. 


POLICY: 



1. Proposed Airport Noise 

Regulation 88-0016 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

Proposed Fiscal Year 1987-88 

Airport Budget 3 



CORRESPONDENCE: 3 

CLOSED SESSION: 2 

ADJOURNMENT: 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

January 22, 1988 
Special Meeting 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
10:00 A.M. in Room 2C, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z. L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 



C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0014 regarding the settlement of 
ltiigation with Autoscan Systems, 
Inc.; and, 88-0015, modification no. 1 
to agreement with the law firm of 
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus Vlahos and 
Rudy to increase the total compensa- 
tion payable by $100,000 at the closed 
session of January 5, 1988. 



H. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting was recessed at 10:03 AM to go into closed session and 
reconvened at 10:15 AM. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes, January 22, 1988, Page 2 



E. POLICY: 



Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted. Attached is a court reporters 
transcript of thi s item. 

1 . Proposed Airport Noise Abatement Regulation 

No. 88-0016 



F. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing on the budget was opened at 10:45 AM and closed at 
10:46 AM, there being no comments from the public. 

2. Proposed Fiscal Year 1988/89 Airports Commission Budget 



G. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



I. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:46 AM. 




tbUMuJu 



?an Caramatti 
amission Secretary 



Minutes, January 22, 1988, Page 3 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ART AGNOS , MAYOR 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



NOISE ABATEMENT REGULATION 



Friday, January 22, 1988 



SAN FRANCISCO CITY BALL, ROOM 2-C 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

UliLlu w - lL 



Reported by CBARLOTTE CERVANTEZ, Notary Public 

Alameda County, State of California 

C.S.R. License No. 4486 



Bay area Court reporters 

20993 Foothill, Suite 222 41 Sutter Suite 1222 

Hayward, Ca. 94541 (415)481-8009 San Francisco. Ca. 94104 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 



SAN_FEANCI£CQ_INTERfiATIQNAL_AIEPQET_£QMMIS£IQNERS 

HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President 

HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Commissioner 

BONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEISBELL, Commissioner 

BONORABLE ATHENA TSOOGARAKIS, Commissioner 

HONORABLE DON RICHARDS STEPHENS, Commissioner 

LOUIS A. TORPEN, Director of Airports 

DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel 

STEVEN ROSENTHAL, Airport Outside Counsel 

JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary 



AUDIENCE_S_PEAKER£ 
Christine Bishol 
David Carbone 
Roger Chinn 
Vance Fort 
Mary Griffin 
Shelley Kessler 
Jerry Nelson 
Delores Buajardo 
Herbert Rosenthal 
Du a ne S pe nee 



PAGE 

3 

6 

7 

9 
10 
12 
13 
15 
16 
18 



oOo 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hay ward. Ca. 94541 



Bay area Court reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutler. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



1 EEQCEEDlfiSS 

2 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right, Miss Caramatti, have you 

4 read the resolution? 

5 MS. CARAMATTI: No I have not. 

6 Proposed Airport Noise Abatement Regulation. 

7 MR. TDRPEN: Ladies and gentlemen, may we have your 

8 attention, please. The Airports Commission is now considering 

9 its proposed Airport Noise Regulation. I ask the Commission 

10 secretary to recognize anyone who might like to address the 

11 Commission at this time. 

12 MS. TSO0GARAKIS: We have the list. 

13 MR. TDRPEN: Commissioner Bernstein, do you have the 

14 list? 

15 MS. CARAMATTI: Yes, we do. 

16 MR. TDRPEN: Do you have the names? 

17 MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, I do. 

18 There are quite a few speakers, and in the interest 

19 of time, would you please limit it to about three minutes. 
First speaker, Miss Christine Bishol of Terrace 

Drive, San Francisco, representing the Airport Noise Committee. 

CfiEISlIHE-BISflQL 
MS. BISBOL: Good morning to the distinguished 
members of this Commission. My name is Christine Bishol, and 
I'm a member of the Airport Noise Committee. I am honored to be 



Bay area court Reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. C» 94104 



the appointee of Supervisor Jim Gonzalez, who has requested that 
I come here this morning to speak on his behalf and on the 
behalf of the entire committee. 

I understand that you are considering today new 
regulation which would phase out by 1999 certain types of 
aircraft which would be allowed to land in San Francisco 
International Airport. 

Supervisor Gonzalez and I and the entire committee 
strongly support this significant and necessary first step. We 
are all concerned and active members of this San Francisco 
community. We fully realize the importance of maintaining a 
strongly competitive and thriving business community. We must 
work to encourage businesses to base themselves in our city. 

I believe that this does contribute to a higher 
standard of living for all people in this city. I believe that 
this strong business community assists San Francisco in 
maintaining its status as one of the world's greatest places to 
live. I also believe that we roust also continue to encourage a 
reasonable amount of tourism. 

All of this requires that we maintain a competitive 
and thriving and efficient international airport. However, as 
representatives of the people of San Francisco's best interest, 
we must also seriously consider the quality of life which we 
should expect for ourselves and for everyone who lives in and 
around our city. 

We must listen to the voices of the many people of 



Bay area Court Reporters 



20993 Foothill. Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



the many neighborhoods who have been working with us and 
reporting to us that the noise is getting worse, that they can 
count five to seven planes in a row taking off from 
San Francisco International Airport at the hour of 7:00 a.m. 

Why is it that these people are aware of these 
aircraft when they live so very far away from the takeoff and 
landing runways? Our committee is working to answer these 
questions for ourselves and for those we represent. We are 
searching for ways to solve this airport noise problem and at 
the same time encourage our city to continue to be competitive 
in a world market. We see the passing of this regulation as an 
excellent first step. 

Yes, we do need to have a busy international 
airport. However, we do need to pursue new means to attaining 
this goal without ruining the integrity of this city, which has 
been surviving quite well for a much longer period of time. 

The larger airlines are obviously not going to like 
it if you regulate the types of aircrafts that are going to land 
at your airport. They're going to do everything they can to 
stop these regulation from occuring. This is completely 
understandable, as this type of regulation can cost the airlines 
a lot of money. 

However, in the long run, we hope that these 
airlines will understand that if they promote the production of 
quieter aircraft within their company, they will get our market 
for long-term profit. This could be a very difficult change for 



Bay area court Reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca. 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



the airlines to accept. However, if this Commission has heard 
the voices of the people of this city, the airlines will have no 
choice but to change, for the betterment of all. 

Supervisor Gonzalez and I, along with the entire 
airport noise committee and those we represent, would like to 
thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 
Knowing the integrity of the distinguished members of this 
Commission, we feel confident that you will support this 
regulation as an excellent first step. 

Thank you. 

MR. TORPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Mr. David Carbone, the City of South San Francisco. 

D&XID_C.££BQflE 

MR. CARBONE: Good morning, Commissioners, my name 
is David Carbone, City of South San Francisco. We have some 
comments, as also some other communities have, and we'd like to 
voice ours, again, our support for the regulation and give you 
our comments. 

Among the concerns, though, that we have is that the 
revisions have relaxed some of the time frames, some of the key 
elements of the regulation, that we feel are not what we were 
expecting through the draft of November; and also it would 
hamper some of the noise regulation work that's been done by 
the Airport Community Round Table and some communities who have 



Bay area court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward, Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco, Ca 94104 



been working within the airport for a long, long time. 

Specifically those sections that I'm referring to 
are the time tables regarding the percentage of Stage 3 
operations and the limitations on nighttime Stage 2 operations 
and also the maximum nighttime noise levels. 

We do commend the Commission on the comprehensive 
regulation, and we certainly support your efforts in dealing 
with that situation at the airport. Those of all of San Mateo 
County are appreciative of that. However, we are concerned that 
by limiting some of these — or extending some of these time 
frames, that the desired effect of your regulation will not be 
what you expect, and it certainly won't be what we're expecting. 

We'd like to see you take another look at some of 
those time frames and hopefully not push them back far enough 
where they will defeat their intended purpose. 

Thank you. 

MR. TDRPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Mr. Roger Chinn, Foster City, represeting the 
Round Table. 

PQgER, CBIUS 
MR. CBINN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, 
my name is Roger Chinn, I'm Chairman of the Round Table of 
San Mateo County and of the airport. I'd like to just briefly 
indicate my views, and only my views, of the revisions to the 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward. Ca. 94541 



Bay area court reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter, Suite 1222 
San Francisco, Ca 94104 



1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



noise regulation. 

The January llth and 21st changes have not been 
reviewed by the Round Table. I have had an opportunity to 
review them along with our consultant. I am willing to advise 
the Round Table that we should recommend and adopt — ask you to 
adopt the changes as well as the the entire regulation, as 
changed, I should say. 

Mr. Turpen has briefly told me of the changes of 
the 21st, the changes that were written up yesterday. I frankly 
have not read them through and deciphered what they indicate, 
but it appears to be changes that can be iroplementable , with the 
help of the communities in the peninsula. 

I would like to also indicate to you that a number 
of constituents have contacted me, not only in the peninsula but 
in your community of San Francisco, indicating their concerns 
over the noise regulation as changed. I do feel, though, as I 
indicated, that the changes are good, that they can be 
impleraentable , if we can have some time to review them and also 
monitor them and also come back with some recommendations in the 
coming months. 

Supervisor Gonzalez has and I have talked about 
these regulation and the changes that are being proposed, and I 
think we both agree that these changes can be good for all our 
communities if we have the opportunity of reviewing them. 

We have also contacted Mayor Agnos , and I have 
copies of that letter to you, indicating our support of the 



Bay area Court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
S»n Francisco, Ca 94104 



Commission's review of the regulation; but again, I want to 
emphasize that we should go forward positively and have an 
opportunity of looking over these regulation and how they will 
4 affect the communities in the future. 
Thank you. 

6 MR. TORPEN: Thank you, Roger. 

7 MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

8 Mr. Vance Fort of Los Angeles from Flying Tigers. 
9 

10 V.ANC_E_FQRT 

11 MR. FORT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

12 Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. We appreciate and 

13 recognize the great deal of work done by the Commission in 

14 preparing itself for this room. 

15 There have been a number of important changes made 

16 since we were here last month, in the meeting at that time, from 

17 previous sessions. We appreciate that work. But also we remain 

18 concerned. It's clear that notwithstanding the fact that we 

19 have one of the most noise efficient fleets, we would be 

20 adversely affected by this rule. To what extent, it's not 

21 clear; but certainly it's altogether conceivable that we'll have 
to take some pay load penalty in order to comply with the rules, 
especially in the coming years. 

Equally important is our concern about the 
proliferation of these kinds of rules on a national and also on 
a local level. Obviously issues not directly of concern to you, 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward. Ca. 94541 



Bay area Court Reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



10 



1 but as we attempt to operate a national system, indeed an 

2 international system, we are concerned that we are going to one 

3 day wake up and find ourselves unable to get from point A to 

4 point B, because of a number of rules that in and of themselves 

5 make a lot of sense but when taken together actually adversely 

6 impact the ability to operate in a very fundamental way. 

7 The Airport Association earlier this month asked the 

8 Commission to consider deferring final consideration of this 

9 rule, we would like to reiterate that request. We think it's 

10 very serious, we know that you do, and we think we could all 

11 benefit from more consideration of it. 

12 I'd just like to say, in closing, that I've also 

13 been asked on behalf of the senior management of 

14 Northwest Airlines in Minneapolis to reiterate its concerns 

15 expressed here last month. They say that those concerns are no 

16 less today, in light of the Commission's work with respect to 

17 this issue, than they were last month. 

18 MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vance. 

19 Mary Griffin with the San Mateo Board of 

20 Supervisors. 
21 

M_A.EJf_SBIEEIfi 
MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Chairman Burnstein. I'm 
here today to speak to you to urge that you not do anything that 
will have local control preempted from some of these noise 
regulations. That is my main concern. 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hay ward, Ca 94541 



Bay area Court reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



11 



I hear the airlines speaking to not being hampered 
by local regulation, and yet at the same time I have worked very 
closely with your Airports Director in the almost 12 years that 
I've been in elected office, and I know that we have had a lot 
of community input. 

I happen to represent the district in 
San Mateo County that really is most impacted by the airport and 
airport noise. I live in the district and represent the 
district that really is the boundary of the airport. I 
recognize as a Board of Supervisor member the importance of the 
airport to our economy and to our well-being, but I also have 
many, many constituent calls about airport noise. 

We have moved ahead and moved forward in our 
cooperative approaches to this and I, for one, feel that for us 
to delay noise regulations, local noise regulations, until we 
are preempted by the federal government, would be a grievous 
error for our constituency. 

I haven't had a chance yet to review the changes 
that have been made since our Airport Found Table met, but I do 
ask that you not — not — delay this forever so that the 
federal government will step in and say the local citizens no 
longer have any rights. That's my biggest concern. 

Thank you. 

MR. TDRPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Shelley Kessler of the Airport Labor Coalition, 



Bay area Court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward, Ca. 94541 



(415)481 8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



12 



San Mateo Labor Council. 



£EELLEY_KE££L.E£ 

MS. KESSLEF : Good morning, I'm back again to 
represent those unions who represent the large organized work 
force out at the airport. We have been enemies with Mr. Turpen 
and have spoken with different Commission members about the 
noise abatement regulation to get as much clarification and 
understanding of the situation as possible. 

We definitely appreciate the hard work that's been 
done to deal with both the concerns of the community in and 
around the airport, to mitigate the noise problem, and also for 
the air carriers to deal with their concerns about being able to 
have use of the airport. 

However, the only part of the equasion that's not in 
the noise regulation is that which affects labor. Our unions 
have expressed concern, because in all of the language that's 
there, there's not clear or predictable language that affects 
the impact upon us. Due to that lack of specific language, we 
really want to take a position of nonsupport on this noise 
regulation, because we do not know what the actual impact is 
going to be . 

We are concerned about the present and future work 
force at that location. Our members live in and around the 
airport, as well as work there; that's why it's very tough. I'm 
sure that you've received a letter that puts out our position 



Bay area court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward, Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter, Suite 1222 
San Francisco, Ca 94104 



13 



fairly clearly, that we are caught in a bind in one sense, now; 
because we understand and appreciated and would like to have 
good noise abatement put in place, but we also want to protect 
the jobs of our people. 

So I thank you all for giving the opportunity; I 
wish we would have had more time to review this and talk about 
the impact of these regulation; and hopefully it we can have 
some opportunity in the future, to maybe put an amendment in or 
something that deals with job security, we'd like that 
opportunity to do so. 

Thank you. 

MR. TORPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Jerry Nelson, Local 1781, representing Ground 
Service Employees. 



IEB£X_fl£L£QE 

MR. NELSON: Good morning, Commissioner Bernstein, 
fellow Commissioners. My name is Jerry Nelson, I'm President of 
Local 1781, representing the Ground Service Employees of the 
major carriers at San Francisco International. 

I would like to express only one concern here this 
morning. I know your time is short and there are many issues to 
be dealt with here. Discretionary authority is what concerns roe 
with the regulation as presented to you here this morning; that 
discretionary authority is put in the hands of a Director of 



20993 Foothill. Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca 94541 



Bay area Court Reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



14 



Airports . 

You can begin with page 6 of the amended proposed 
regulation, and again it references "Director of Airports 
shall," "Director of Airports may," "at the request of," "shall 
be heard by the Commission or an official designee" — obviously 
the official designee of the Airport Commission is going to be 
the Airports Director. 

Throughout, beginning with the variances on page 6, 
going through to exemptions for maintenance operations, "upon 
written application, the Director of Airports may grant..." 
If you look upon this document as a sterile and 
sanitized document, that will live in perpetuity eventually — 
MR. GOOSBY: Only the Bible is that pure. 
MR. NELSON: I was referencing the attorney that's 
on the Board. They like to use those kinds of words. 

If it lives forever, what we're faced with is a 
situation where the interpretation of and the study of this 
document in the future may have a different connotation than it 
presently does today. 

We feel within our local union that the language 
needs to be tightened up, that some further direction needs to 
be given. Yes, we're talking about noise abatement here, we're 
talking about motherhood and apple pie. 

Nobody is against fighting the problems of noise. 
Everybody, including the workers who walk around with earplugs 
and earmuffs eight hours a day, don't like the noise. 



Bay area Court Reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward, Ca 94541 



(4151481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



15 



They recognize the technology doesn't exist yet, 
that we're on the threshold of finding that technology, but we 
are also looking at 8000 maintenance jobs at the San Francisco 
International Airport that could be impacted — Flying Tiger, 
Northwest, United Airlines. Major concerns of the workers. 

I'm here this morning to express that concern and 
the concern about discretionary authority, that hopefully this 
Commission will take a look at and address it. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

MR. TOFPEN: Thank you very much. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. 

Miss Deloris Huajardo. Is that the way you 
pronounce it? 

MR. TORPEN: Deloris Buajardo? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Buajardo? 

You are a resident of San Mateo County. 

DELQ£ES_flO_&2&£DQ 

MS. BUAJARDO: Right, I'm a resident of Burlingame, 
and I thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

We appreciate this important move that you are 
taking to adopt regulations, and we highly commend you for this 
step. We think it's very important, but the regulations that 
have finally come down have not been able to be reviewed by the 
community with input from the community; and as you've heard 
from our representatives, they have not had time to review the 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca. 94541 



Bay area Court Reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



16 



final draft adequately. 

So we would ask that you postpone adoption of the 
regulation until after the Round Table meets on February 
the 3rd, when there's been time for careful consideration by the 
county. I would like to submit to you a comparative draft that 
we did. 

There's a comparison of the original draft, then 
what was proposed to the Found Table, and then the final draft. 
I'll submit that for your review. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Mr. Herbert Rosenthal, Washington, D.C. with D.B.L. 
Airways . 



fiEEBEET_EQS.EflTH.A_Ii 

MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. President, members of the 
Commission, I'm Herbert Rosenthal, I'm here today representing 
D.B.L. Airways. 

We operate one round trip per day into San Francisco 
Airport about five days a week. We recognize that balancing the 
competing demands of airport neighbors and airport users is a 
very difficult job, and we recognize that you Commissioners and 
the Airports Director and his staff are under enormous pressure. 
It's a difficult task. 

While we are not wholly pleased with this, the 
rules, we are not wholly displeased. It looks to us as if we 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hay ward. Ca. 94541 



Bay area Court reporters 



(415)481 8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



17 



will be able to obtain a variance from Section 4-B so that we 
can continue to work with the Airports Commission and the 
director and work with the vendors in the industry who are in 
the developmental stages of reengining our new hush kits for the 
727 100's and 72/ 200's which will be the backbone of our fleet 
into the 1990 's. 

We feel confident that there will be Stage 3 727's 
sometime in the '90's; we don't know when, but we'll be working 
with those vendors; and to the extent that these aircraft become 
available, we will use our best efforts to put them into our 
fleet and route them through San Francisco. 

We expect that we would have no difficulty in 
entering into a preferential runway agreement with the Airports 
Director and living up to it. We feel that on a small operator, 
that requirement in the variance procedure is reasonable and we 
anticipate no difficulty in fulfilling it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to let us participate 
in this. We know its a difficult task, and we wish you good 
luck in dealing with it. 

Thank you. 

MR. TORPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Berbert. 

MR. GOOSBY: Appreciate that. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Duane Spence, representing the 
Citizens of San Mateo as a citizen. 



Bay area Court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hay ward, Ca 94541 



(415)481 8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



18 



MR. SPENCE: Good rooming ladies and gentlemen, I 
apologize for taking up your time this rooming. I hadn't 
planned to be here, but I had so many phone calls from my fellow 
constituents in the San Mateo County that I was forced here, to 
explain to you how bitterly disappointed we are with the draft 
regulation as it stands now and our feeling that — 

We feel you could have saved Mr. Turpen a lot of 
trouble by asking him at the outset to have the airlines draft a 
regulation, so you could adopt what they want. 

Now there have been a litany of changes thrown at us 
in these regulations. We feel that our elected representatives 
have had no chance to review them. I think you're sympathetic 
to the fact that to be fair they must be able to review them and 
consider anything they want to do as far as affecting changes. 
The best forum for that is the Community Round Table, and, so, 
we ask that you defer your adoption of these regulations until 
our Round Table has had a chance to meet and we have a chance to 
confront our elected representatives at that meeting. 

Let roe remind you that the Airport Community 
Round Table was started about eight years ago and is in about 
it's 70th meeting. Of those 70 meetings the elected 
representatives of each city which is a member have been 
present; San Francisco has chosen not to have an elected 
representative there more than a half dozen tiroes. We're very 
disappointed in that. 



Bay area court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hay ward, Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco, Ca 94104 



19 



You've had an airport regulation for approximately 
four years, and in that time over a million operations have 
occurred at the airport; a major noise problem exists there, and 
yet not one noise violation has been issued as a result of those 
regulations . 

We feel you have a chance here to start a very 
effective noise regulation. Based upon your November draft 
proposal, we had some modest changes that we wanted to see 
tightened up. Rather than tightening up on each of those 
points, they have either been held constant or have been 
diluted, so that now we feel that we're not getting very much at 
all in terms of affecting real changes in the noise operation at 
the airport. 

Again I would ask you, do not adopt your regulations 
today; let us have a chance to meet as an organized body. And I 
would urge that you have an elected representative, which is 
your right and proper position, at the very next Round Table 
meeting . 

Thank you. 

MR. TORPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: That ends the speakers. 

MR. TORPEN: Mr. President, the Airports Commission 
and its staff have spent a considerable amount of time 
delevoping a noise regulation — which, candidly, is at the 
forefront of noise regulation in the United States — which 
specifies requirements in terms of fleet mix and use of quieter 



Bay area Court Reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward. Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



20 



aircraft. It has been exhaustively coordinated to the best of 
our ability and as much as is humanly possible. 

I believe it is now time to move forward, and I 
would recommend this regulation to you for your consideration 
this morning. 

MS. TSODGARAKIS: Move. 

MR. GOOSBY: Second. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Are there any new comments from 
the — 

MR. GOOSBY: Well, I just wanted to assure the 
community, both the users and the residents of the airport area, 
and the users of the airport, that as we look at the amendments 
and the language in the ordinance honoring the regulation, the 
language that allows the, as one speaker mentioned, 
discretionary authority, really builds in flexibility that we 
feel more comfortable with; because nobody knows for sure how 
they can put 15 pages of any kind of regulation together that's 
going to satisfy everybody, and if it has satisfied everybody, 
you just about haven't said anything. 

The fact that we are getting criticism now from both 
sides kind of tells roe we are approaching somewhere near the 
right balance. So there's nobody who will be happy with this. 

But I think that the language there allows this 
approval, the approval of the Director for varianaces, for 
temporary exemptions; so that we're not really going to hamper 
the economy in any serious way, of the area. 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca. 94541 



Bay area Court reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
Sen Francisco. C« 94104 



21 



I think the concerns of the neighboring community 
are important, that we keep in mind, to see what impact this 
will have. 

This ordinance is not in concrete; it can be 
appended, as any ordinance or any regulation can be. After 
we've seen it in operation for a year or two. And I especially 
remind the Round Table that they, as they look at these 
suggested amendments by them as well as by the industry, can be 
brought to the Director and to the Commission in subsequent 
months and year or two or three, and signed up — after we've 
seen how it works, what changes we should make. 

So you should accept it with that in mind, with the 
Commission having that in mind. That should make you, I think, 
feel a little better about the approval of this, all of this, if 
it's approved today. 

The other thing of this, there's always the appeal 
of the Director to the Commission on any ruling of the Director. 
You can appeal to the five members of the Commission, who would 
be sensitive to the various areas of our constituency. 

So with that, I hope that it would allay a lot of 
fears. The impact on the working force I think is often 
forgotten, but I want to assure them that the Commission is on 
top of your concern and will not forget that concern. We'll 
keep it in foremost. That's all I have. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

I received a letter from Mr. James Murphy, 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward.Ca. 94541 



Bay area court reporters 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



22 



Vice-President of the Air Transport Association of America. 
Would you please make that a part of the record. 

MS. CARAMATTI : Yes. 

MR. FLEISBELL: Can I just make one comment, if I 
may. It's important that everyone know that despite the one 
person's comment that this is a perpetual document, it isn't. 
This can be amended next week. And inevitably when a 
legislation or a rule goes out, too often there needs to be some 
fine tunings. 

I for one will not ever look for anything to put a 
large segment of people out of work. And I don't think this 
would do it. We're torn between the F.A.A. on the one side, who 
says we are going beyond their authority, and on the other side 
some people saying we're not being strong enough. 

So, as Mr. Goosby says, we're getting to something 
that seems fair to everyone. 



Call the question. 

Commissioner Bernstein? 

Yes. 

Commission Fleishell. 

Yes. 

Commission Goosby? 
MR. GOOSBY: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis? 
MS. TSOOGARAKIS: Yes. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Stephens? 



MR. BERNSTEIN 
MS. CARAMATTI 
MR. BERNSTEIN 
MS. CARAMATTI 
MR. FLEISBELL 
MS. CARAMATTI 



Bay area Court reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward, Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



23 



MR. STEPHENS: Yes. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

My only comment is I think the Commission was right, 
and I think everyone connected with this deal did a helluva job. 
I congratulate you, Mr. Rosenthal, and the Director and everyone 
else. It's a long time in coming, took a lot of work, a lot of 
hours . 

MR. TDRPEN: Thank you, sir. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I think it was a job well done, and 
perhaps we will go forward. 

(Hearing adjourned at 10:42 a.m.) 



0O0 



Bay area court reporters 



20993 Foothill. Suite 222 
Hay ward, Ca 94541 



(415)481 8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
CODNTY OF ALAMEDA 



) SS . 



I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of 
California, hereby certify that foregoing Public Bearing was 
taken at the time and place therein stated; that the proceedings 
of said Public Bearing were reported by me, a Certified 
Shorthand Reporter and disinterested person, and were thereafter 
transcribed under ray direction into typewriting; that the 
foregoing is a full, complete and true record of said hearing. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing 
Public Bearing, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome of 
the cause named herein. 



IN WITNESS WBEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal this 25th day of January 1988. 




WeBTTRLOTTE CERVANTVzrrcSR#44 8& " 
Notary Public, State of California 



Bay area court Reporters 



20993 Foothill, Suite 222 
Hayward, Ca 94541 



(415)481-8009 



41 Sutter. Suite 1222 
San Francisco. Ca 94104 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



<y 




DOCUMEN1 S DEPT. 

MAR 1 1 1988 

^UttUIC IJRPAPV 



MINUTES 



FEBRUARY 2, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

February 2, 1988 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 
B. 
C. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
December 1 , 1987; and, 
January 5, 1988 

Special meeting of 
January 22, 1988 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



DIRECTOR'S REPORT: 

Report on Boarding Area 
' E' Lease - Oral Report 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



88-0018 
88-0019 

88-0020 



PAGE 
3 

3 

3 
3 

3 
3 

3-4 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Travel /Training: Oshkosh 



88-0021 



G. 



POLICY: 

Policy to Clarify Diversion 
of Revenues 



88-0022 



5-6 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

3. Resolution Awarding Lease 
Option - Host International 

4. Airports Commission Budget, 
Fiscal Year 1988/89 

5. Exercise Option of Airport 
Parking Management Operating 
Agreement 

6. Options of Rental Car 
Concession Agreements 



88-0023 



88-0024 



88-0025 



88-0026 
88-0027 
88-0028 
88-0029 
88-0030 



6-10 

10 

10 



10-11 



Authorization to Conduct a 

Pre-Bid Conference - Hair 

Salon 88-0031 11 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

8. Status of Master Plan and 
Approval for Distribution of: 
1) Airport's Response to 
Comments on Working Paper 'A'; 
and, 2) Addendum to Working 

Paper 'A' 88-0032 11 

9. Type II Modification for 
Contract No. 1753 - Under- 
ground Storage Tank Removal 

and Related Work 88-0033 11 

10. Rejection of All Bids: 
Contract No. 1626R - Cleanup 

of Area Northwest of Plot 40 88-0034 11 

11. Award of Contract 1823: New 
Security Facilities at Boarding 
Area 'D', Intern'l Terminal, 

to Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass 

Company for $164,057 88-0035 11 

12. Authorization for the City of 
Burlingame to Extend the 
Pedestrian/Bike Path at the 

Shoreline Bird Sanctuary 88-0036 11 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

SuperShuttle' s comments re: 

new $4.00 Airporter service 12 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 12 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

February 2, 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z. L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following meetings were unanimously adopted 



No. 88-0018 
No. 88-0019 
No. 88-0020 



Regular meetings of December 1, 1987 

and January 5, 1988; and, 

Special meeting of January 22, 1988 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced the 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0017 regarding the settlement of a 
litigated claim at the closed session 
of January 22, 1988. 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Report on Boarding Area 'E' Lease - Oral Report 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business & Finance, said that 
the Board of Supervisor's Governmental Operations Committee has been 
awaiting a report from Grant Mickens, Director of the Human Rights 
4ommission since November before considering the award of the 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 3 



Boarding Area 'E' lease to Duty Free Shoppers. Mr. Mickens had 
recently indicated that his report would be considered by the Human 
Rights Commission at its January 14. On January 11 Mr. Mickens 
informed staff that the report was not complete and the item would be 
calendared for the January 28 HRC meeting. On January 27 staff 
learned that the January 28 meeting had been cancelled. Ms. Gittens 
said that at this time staff does not know when Mr. Mickens will 
present his report to his Commission. To her knowledge, HRC's next 
meeting is February 11. She added that the delay in awarding this 
lease is costing the Airport $110,000 a month in lost revenue. 

Commissioner Goosby said that an effort is being made by the Board of 
Supervisors to have the Human Rights Commission divested of the 
implementation of the MBE ordinance. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Rules Committee will be discussing a 
proposed Charter Amendment at its meeting today. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked if any attempt had been made to advise 
the Mayor of this situation. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the new Mayor has not yet been informed. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that while the Mayor is facing a serious 
budget deficit and trying to find ways to cut expenditures and 
maximize revenues, this money is being wasted. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the Commission had decided to. wait until 
HRC's January 28 commission meeting. She said that it would be 
appropriate to get some action. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Commission should write to the 
Mayor advising him on the background of this issue. 

Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, said he would take care of it. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis noted that a representative of the Mayor's 
Office was present. 

Commissioner Goosby added that the $1 -mi 1 1 i on being spent in customs 
on free carts at Herb Caen's urging should be looked at. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby introduced a resolution approving travel to Oshkosh, 
Wisconsin to inspect fire equipment. He added that this travel would not 
be at the Airport's expense. 

The resolution was unanimously adopted. 

No. 88-0021 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 4 



G. POLICY: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

2. Policy Regarding Diversion of Revenues 

No. 88-0022 Policy to clarify Diversion of Revenue 

clause in Airport Concession Lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that this resolution clarifies the meaning of the 
term "diversion", found in the Airport's boilerplate retail 
concession leases. He recommended adopting the resolution in order 
to avoid confusion and misunderstandings on the part of tenants, 
since all of the Airport's leases contain that language. He said 
that this resolution was derived from individual conversations with 
Commission members. 

Mr. Turpen said that in 1980 or 1981, when the Airport put together a 
revised standard lease format, the diversion clause was one of a 
number of clauses inserted. He said felt that some framework around 
this clause is warranted and will serve to guide tenants in their 
conduct and activities. Without it, it is left in a gray area. 

Mr. Turpen said that the key element is when a tenant, either by 
overt or covert means, induces people away from the Airport to 
conduct business that they would otherwise conduct on the Airport. 
If a rental car employee, for example, tells a client that if he 
rents a car in town rather than at the Airport he will receive a 
discount, it is a clear intent to divert revenue. He likened this 
situation to the issue of solicitation with respect to ground 
transportation. He explained that if a patron wants to take a 
certain ground transportation service at the Airport he has every 
right to do so. The conflict comes into play when a patron is 
induced away from his intended course by some action on the part of 
the concessionaire. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if it would be a violation if a rent-a-car 
company placed billboards in downtown San Francisco stating that 
renting a car in town is cheaper than renting a car at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen felt that if a client is in downtown San Francisco and 
didn't come through the Airport, there is a reasonable expectation 
that that individual would not come out to the Airport to rent a 
car. He did agree, however, that such a large sign in Union Square 
might be a violation. 

Commissioner Bernstein suggested that staff contact a realtor, like 
Ed Plant, who would explain different leases. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the biggest concern would be with 
Airport rent-a-car agencies offering shuttle service into San 
Francisco where a client would then receive a 10 percent discount. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is no clear definition of diversion in the 
clause; that determination has been left up to the Director on a case 
by case basis up to this point. He felt it important that the 
Commission formalize its view and said that the resolution before the 
Commission provides the framework to make case by case determinations. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it wouldn't be simpler to get a 
percentage of a tenant's downtown business. 

Mr. Turpen said that although the current boilerplate leases couldn't 
be amended at this time, a review would be worthwhile. 

Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 5 



Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the concept was valid. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if it would be a violation for a car 
rental company to list separate rates for the Airport and downtown in 
a brochure. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he would want time to take a look at that 
rather than respond casually. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that it would be a violation under the 
language of this resolution. 

Mr. Turpen added that this resolution says that companies have a 
contractual obligation with the Airport and they pay a fee for 
certain rights. If they exercise their rights but deny us our money, 
then that action is in violation of the spirit of our agreement. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested that staff take a look at the 
non-Airport car rental companies. They advertise that their rates 
are cheaper because they don't pay a fee to the Airport. He said 
that one company even uses the Airport logo. 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item No. 3 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

3. Resolution Awarding Lease Option - Host International 

No. 88-0023 Resolution exercising ten-year option 

on the Host International Food and 
Beverage Lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airports Commission is considering an option 
to the Host/Marriott food and beverage lease. The concept of that 
option originated in October 1985 and involves two elements. The 
first element involves Host/Marriott relinquishing approximately 30 
percent of their terminal space equating to approximately 30 percent 
of their revenue for minority/women business opportunity. The second 
element, which surfaced about a year ago, was the concept of price 
control. Under this concept, the Airport would exercise some control 
over prices using a set formula, a market basket, establishing a 
definite tangible mechanism for determining the appropriate price of 
many of the food items offered at the Airport. He said that both 
issues are combined in the proposal before the Commission but the 
final lease is not before the Commission. Mr. Turpen said that the 
final concept contains the following: Host will sublease 10 
facilities in three phases. Those facilities generate approximately 
Ill-million in revenue. There will be two restaurants/bars, a snack 
bar and an ice cream parlor in phase one; a public cafeteria and an 
employee cafeteria in phase two; and, in phase three, a restaurant, 
two bars and an ice cream facility. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has been through this repeatedly. 
He asked that the Commission grant requests to speak on this matter 
and then direct staff to proceed to finalize the documentation. 

Commissioner Bernstein recommended postponing action for 30 days in 
order to brief the Mayor and his staff on what has been done. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he would still like the Commission's 
approval to finalize the documents while staff is in that process. 

Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 6 



Commissioner Bernstein felt that the new administration should have 
the opportunity to review this issue. He felt that staff should also 
sit down with the various minority communities to discuss their 
problems and fears. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if the item is simply put over for 
30 days without direction to finalize the documents, those 30 days 
will be lost. She explained that Mr. Turpen was suggesting that the 
Commission direct staff to finalize the documentation, work with the 
Mayor's Office and anyone having questions, then return to the 
Commission with a final version next month. She said she agreed with 
this approach and felt that proceeding with the paperwork would be in 
everyone's best interest. 

Mr. Turpen added that he wanted approval to proceed with the 
documentation but did not expect Commission approval for the option 
until the final documentation has been presented. He said that 
Commissioner Bernstein's concerns could be addressed within the next 
thirty days in addition to working on the language. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed that staff should be directed to define 
the language without committing the Commission to an approval. He 
agreed that staff should sit down with the Mayor's Office and the 
minority community to work out any differences. He felt it would 
behoove staff and the minority/women business community to negotiate 
with Host. 

Mr. Turpen said that it is particularly important that this action be 
taken to alert people that there is an additional 30 days in which to 
offer input into this process. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he did not object to staff moving ahead. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that this all began in October, 
1985 and since that time pages of history have been written, and 
public meetings and meetings with the communities have been held. 
The community must understand that the Commission has established a 
deadline and at the end of the 30-day period the Commission will take 
action, one way or the other. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she felt very strongly about this and 
would like to see the facilities operating as soon as possible. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that Commissioner Stephens's letter to 
the Director in which he objected to the pricing concept be added to 
the record. She also noted that Commissioner Stephens did not make 
mention of the minority issue in his letter. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that Commissioner Stephens has not been 
on the Commission long enough to realize that it has long been the 
policy of the Airports Commission to equate the price of items sold 
at the Airport with providing service to the traveling public. This 
is not purely a dollar and cents issue. He said that the Commission 
has been trying to break Host's lease for 10 years, not because they 
haven't been providing a service but because the Commission wanted 
minority participation. Now, Host is agreeing to minority 
participation in exchange for a 10 year extension. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he not only wanted to see the 
paragraphs that will be changed in the document but the breakdown of 
the particular restaurants, as well as their earning histories to 
determine whether or not it's a good deal for minorities and women. 
He said that at $1,325,000, the operator of a restaurant would have 
to gross $228,000 per month in order to pay the Airport $34,000 per 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 7 



month in rent. The payment on a fifteen year note would be $18,251 a 
month. Commissioner Fleishell said that if he had $1.3-million he 
would put it in the bank at eight percent and get $132,000 per year 
and live well at no risk. He said that the Commission has a duty to 
make sure the deals are good ones. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he met with two representatives from Host 
and his experience in this area is that when an operator owns 
multiple restaurants separate sets of books must be kept in order to 
know if a profit is being made and if the type of food the patrons 
want is being served. He said that since Host does not keep separate 
books on each restaurant it will be difficult for a minority who does 
not have expertise in bookkeeping and accounting to know whether he 
is getting a good deal. He said he would like a better breakdown of 
what the Airport will be getting. 

Commissioner Fleishell concluded his comments by saying that one of 
the reasons for doing this is to give the Airport the right to 
control pricing yet in reading a copy of the lease he discovered that 
the Airport already has that control. He said that paragraph 7A of 
page 13 states that the lessee must abide by all of the applicable 
laws of the City and County of San Francisco, one of which created 
the Human Rights Commission and the right to have minority 
participation. He also said that the argument that a prior lessee 
cannot be bound by a subsequent law does not hold true. The airlines 
are suing the Airport because they have been asked to comply with the 
prevailing wage ordinance which was adopted seven years after they 
signed their leases. 

With respect to Commissioner Fleishell 's first comment, Mr. Turpen 
said that the Airport has been very aggressive in objecting to price 
problems and that the Airport is being due processed to death on this 
issue. The Airport saw an opportunity to take it out of a gray area 
and place it in very definite formula base language. 

With respect to the minority issue, Mr. Turpen said that he was not 
aware that the Airport could require Host to commit 25-30 percent of 
its space to minorities. If that were the case he would ask the City 
Attorney for confirmation and staff would proceed along that line. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that Host is 
complying with all of the applicable affirmative action requirements 
at the present time. The laws to which Commissioner Fleishell 
referred do not reach the issue of subleasing space to minority and 
small business operators. That cannot be mandated through the 
existing ordinances the way they are written. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked about the existing problem with Duty 
Free, where they have been required to sublease 30 percent of their 
space. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport has not made that requirement of 
Duty Free, nor will the law allow it. 

Commissioner Goosby said Duty Free was doing it voluntarily. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he would make the rest of this comments 
privately. 

Commissioners Bernstein and Goosby agreed that any comments should be 
made publicly, now, so that they could be addressed by staff and the 
communi ty . 

Mr. Turpen said he would return to the Commission in two weeks with 
Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 8 



the final lease document and the matter would then be rescheduled for 
the March 1 Commission meeting. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the document lists two categories, one 
for minority/women business and the other for small business. 

Ms. Gittens said that the requirements will contain small business 
set asides for those facilities that would otherwise qualify as small 
businesses. The cookie shop or one of the ice cream parlors would be 
required to be sublet to a small minority or small women's business 
within the thirty-four percent. 

Ms. Gittens said that the definition is a combined $2-mi 1 1 ion gross 
for one principal participating in a business with other principals; 
the facility itself can only gross $600,000 if there is only one 
individual involved. She said that those facilities expected to 
gross $600,000 or less would be required to be sublet to a small 
minority or small women's business. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Human Rights Commission definition 
of small business is different from ours. He said he saw HRC's 
letter to the Airport requesting that the Airport's percentage match 
the City's ordinance and felt that made a lot of sense. 

Ms. Gittens pointed out to the Commission that this does not come 
within the guidelines of the ordinance. 

Commissioner Goosby said that although it is not mandated by the 
ordinance, the Commission can voluntarily do it. 

Ms. Gittens said that was true. She said that according to HRC and 
City Attorney's Office interpretations of the ordinance, this will 
not be counted. 

Commissioner Goosby said that does not matter to the Commission. The 
Commission is trying to achieve affirmative action. Credit is 
incidental . 

Commissioner Goosby said that if having the special set aside for 
small business doesn't unduly complicate Host's implementation of 
this agreement he has no objection to it. He does feel, however, 
that another layer has been added. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that has been a feature of this from the 
beginning. No objections were made at either of the two public 
conferences. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the ordinance was passed after much 
debate and to vary from it indicates that advantage is not being 
taken of those debates and the democratic process that went into the 
passage of that ordinance. In addition, the wording in that 
ordinance refers to attempting an equitable representation of the 
various minority groups in San Francisco. He said that Duty Free 
voluntarily complied in the International Terminal and felt that had 
the minority community been aware of Duty Free's cooperation they 
would not have attacked their downtown operation. 

Ms. Gittens responded to Commissioner Goosby' s comments by saying 
that he had an excellent point about the MBE/W6E/L6E ordinance having 
been the subject of a great deal of debate and having been crafted 
very carefully. She said that the Airport staff was involved in that 
debate and in the crafting of that ordinance and she found it very 
difficult to be unemotional about the fact that elements that staff 
clearly had included in the ordinance and in the rules and 



Minutes, February 2. 1988, Page 9 



regulations have been taken away from the Airport in the principal 
concession program. The Airport was very proud of that program and 
it was discussed very carefully with the City Attorney's staff and 
with HRC's staff working on the ordinance and with the City 
Attorney's staff working on the rules and regulations with the 
Airport. She said that the Airport was assured that the principal 
concession program was protected and then, suddenly, it wasn't. She 
explained that that is why she reacts to statements that staff should 
stick to the ordinance. 



Items 4 through 7 were unanimously adopted. 

4. Airports Commission Budget, Fiscal Year 1988/89 

88-0024 Resolution approving the proposed 

Fiscal Year 1988/89 budget of 
$1 54 . 5-mi 1 lion. 

Mr. Turpen said that the airlines voiced three concerns which are 
contained in his January 21, 1988 memo to the Commission. He asked 
for Commission approval of the budget. 



Exercise Option of Airport Parking Management Operating Agreement 

No. 88-0025 Resolution exercising third one-year 

option for the Airport Parking 
Management Operating Agreement. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this is the third of five one-year options 
under section 10 of the original agreement with Airport Parking 
Management, effective July 1, 1988. The Airport is obligated to 
secure Proposition J analysis of a comparison of in-house versus 
contract economies. 



6. Option for Rental Car Concession Agreements 

Five resolutions authorizing the 
fifth and final one year option for 
each of the current on-Airport rental 
car operators . 



Mr. Turpen said that this concession will go out for bid with the 
completion of this last one-year option. Staff will return to the 
Commission to discuss the long-term physical location of rent-a-cars 
at the Airport as part of the Master Plan. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the consultant has addressed that issue. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the consultant is just getting into it and 
it should be in the Commission's hands within six to eight weeks. He 
said that staff will be presenting descriptions of locations and the 
structure and would be part of the re-bid. 



No. 


88- 


-0026 


No. 


88- 


-0027 


No. 


88- 


-0028 


No. 


88- 


-0029 


No. 


88- 


-0030 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 10 



Authorization to Conduct a Pre-Bid Conference - Hair Salon 

No. 88-0031 Resolution authorizing staff to 

conduct a pre-bid conference for a 
Hair Salon. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 8 thorugh 12 were unanimously adopted. 

8. Status of Master Plan and Approval for Distribution of: 1) Airport's 
Response to Comments on Working Paper 'A'; and, 2) Addendum to 
Working Paper 'A' 

No. 88-0032 



Type II Modification for Contract No. 1753 - Underground Storage Tank 
Removal and Related Work 

No. 88-0033 Resolution approving time extension 

for Airport Contract No. 1753 from 

February 2, 1988 to February 2, 1989 

maintaining the same unit cost 
structure. 



10. Rejection of All Bids 

Airport Contract No. 1626R - 
Cleanup of Area Northwest of Plot 40 

No. 88-0034 Resolution rejecting all bids received 

for Contract No. 1626R. 



11 . Award of Contract 1823 : 

New Security Facilities at Boarding Area 'D', International Terminal , 
to Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Company for $164,057 

No. 88-0035 Security check facility will be 

reconstructed to reflect new procedure 
and to provide crowd control. 
Commission approved budget is $172,000. 



12. Authorization for the City of Burlingame to Extend the Pedestrian/ 
Bike Path at the Shoreline Bird Sanctuary 

No. 88-0036 Resolution approving the extension of 

the pedestrian/bike path at the 
Shoreline Bird Sanctuary by the City 
of Burlingame onto a portion of 
Airport Property. 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 11 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

Mr. Bill Lazar, President of SuperShuttle, asked the Commission for 
permission to speak. He said that it has been rumored in the news that 
Airporter is planning to reinstitute service from the lower level of the 
Airport to their downtown terminal for $4.00, under a permit structure of 
35?!. He asked if that permit is available to other providers or if there 
is a list on which an operator could be placed. He asked where that 
authorization is found in the rules. 

Commissioner Goosby said that it was his understanding that Airporter 
would be hiring non-union drivers and that staff was checking to make sure 
they would be conforming with the prevailing wage concept. 

Mr. Lazar asked under what authority does Airporter have the right to 
provide service from the lower level for 350. 

Mr. Turpen said he would take a look at it and get back to Mr. Lazar. 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:02 AM to go into closed session. 




jjein Caramatti 
commission Secretary 



Minutes, February 2, 1988, Page 12 



D. R. Stephens & Company 



January 28, 1988 



** 



Mr. Louis A. Tureen 

Director of Airports 

P. O. Box 8097 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, CA 94128 



& 



RE: Host Options 



Dear Lou: 



I will be unable to attend the February 2, 1988, Airport 
Commission meeting since I will be out of the State on business. 

In the event you feel it is necessary that the Host motion be 
brought to a vote, I would like, for the record, to be clear in regard to my 
opposition to the granting of an extension to the Host lease. Further, I 
believe the other Commissioners should consider the ramifications of taking 
this step. 

Firstly, it is my understanding that the Commission already 
has the opportunity to adjust the prices charged. Accordingly, the benefits 
set forth in earlier meetings that Host would change their pricing is illusory. 
Secondly, it is my feeling that, if there were ever a time when the lease 
could be freely and competitively bid, the income to the airport would be 
dramatically in excess of the income that Host is paying or that is 
contemplated to be received under the extension of the lease. In the past, 
the lease has always been negotiated under circumstances which precluded 
competitive bidders from participating. 



Accordingly, I feel \\ 
other involved parties that no/extension 
International at this time anc 




interest of the City and the 
w lease be given to Host 
ord to so state. 



DRS:ab/028/DRSC 



cc: Honor a ble Art Agnos 
Mr. Morris Bernstein 
Mr. J. Edward Fleishell 
Dr. Zuretti L. Goosby 
Mr. Athena Tsougarakis 

or Sax Fbakcisco BtriLDnro • BSO Moktoomebt Stbei 



Teicth Flooi ■ Sax Fbaxcisco e*m • <*1S) 7818000 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



2 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

i 3 1983 

SAN FRAIJuioCO 

PltRI IO I IHMAPV 



MINUTES 



MARCH 1, 1988 




ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

March 1 , 1988 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 3 

ROLL CALL: 3 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

February 2, 1988 88-0041 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1 . Host Lease Option 4 

2. Entertainment Center/Video 
Game Room - Authorization 

to Bid 88-0042 4 

3. Close-Out Professional Services 
Agreements and Construction 
Contracts for South Terminal 
Reconstruction Program: 

Group 4/Archi tecture Research 

& Planning, Architects for South 

Terminal West Entrance Bldg. 88-0043 4-5 



Marquis/Wong & Brocchini/ 

Associates, Architects for 

South Terminal Renovation 88-0044 4-5 

Contract 1410EF, South 

Terminal Renocation, Phase 

II and Tunnel 'C Renovation 88-0045 4-5 

Contract 1410ABCD, South 

Terminal Renovation, Phase I, 

West Entrance Building, Tunnel 

'A' & Boarding Area 'A' 88-0046 4-5 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

4. Bid Call : Contract 2023A - 
Traffic Barriers - Airport 
Guard Shelters & Cancellation 
of Contract No. 1736, Traffic 
Controllers Airport Guard 

Shelters 88-0047 5 

5. Tenant Improvement Guide - 

Supplement No. 4 88-0048 5 

6. Travel /Training for Airport 

Representatives 88-0049 5-6 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

Status of Duty Free 6 

Administrative Hearing on 

Q707 6 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes. March 1 , 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

March 1 , 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Don Richards Stephens 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 1988 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0041 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of reso-lution nos. 
88-0037, 88-0038 and 88-0039 regarding 
settlements of litigated claims at the 
closed session of February 2, 1988. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes. Ma' ch 1 , 1988, Page 3 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 
The following item was put over to the call of the Chair. 
1 . Host Lease Option 



Resolution authorizing approval of 
Host Lease Option. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Entertainment Center/Video Game Room - Authorization to Accept Bids 

No. 88-0041 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to accept bids for the 
Entertainment Center/Video Game Room 
in the North Terminal Building. 



3. Close-Out Professional Services Agreements and Construction Contracts 
for South Terminal Reconstruction Program 

Resolutions closing out four contracts 
by fixing final contract price and 
authorizing Director to accept work as 
completed and adjust final contract 
price as required by contract and 
City's Administrative Code. Neither 
City nor consultants/contractors has 
claim against the other. 

No. 88-0043 A. Group 4/Archi tecture Research & 

Planning, Architects for South 
Terminal West Entrance Building — 
Final contract price: $646,243.34. 

No. 88-0044 B. Marquis/Wong & Brocchini/ 

Associates, Architects for South 
Terminal Renovation — Final 
Contract Price: $3,597,265.00. 

No. 88-0045 C. Construction Contract 1410EF, 

South Terminal Renovation, Phase 
II, and Tunnel 'C Renovation — 
Final Contract Price: 
$35,070,622.59. 

No. 88-0046 D. Construction Contract 1410ABCD, 

South Terminal Renovation, Phase 
I, West Entrance Building, Tunnel 
'A', and Boarding Area 'A' — 
Final Contract Price: 
$28,903,105.52. 

Commissioner Stephens asked who the contractors were on the last two items, 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
responded that one was Tutor-Sal iba and the other was Williams and Burrows. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the problem with Williams and Burrows had 
been resolved. 

Minutes , March 1 , 1988, Page 4 



Mr. Yuen responded that the problem had been resolved. The arbitrator 
sided with the Airport and recommended the award that staff had previously 
recommended to the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this was the last problem with the architects. 

Mr. Yuen responded that there is one more architect, Anshen Allen, with 
whom the Airport must negotiate. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that the architectural consultant prepare a 
report for the Commission on how minority architects were involved in the 
last phase of remodeling. He also suggested that the consultant provide 
his thoughts on whether or not he felt the venture was successful. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the consultant intends to prepare such a report 
after Anshen Allen has been resolved. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

4. Bid Call: Contract No. 2023A Traffic Barriers - Airport Guard 

Shelters and Cancellation of Contract No. 1736, Traffic Controllers 
Airport Guard Shelters 

No. 88-0047 Resolution (1) Approves the scope, 

budget and schedule for Contract No. 
2023A, Traffic Barriers - Airport 
Guard Shelters and authorizes the 
Director of Airports to call for bids 
when ready; and, (2) Cancel Contract 
No. 1736, Traffic Controllers Airport 
Guard Shelters. This contract was 
replaced in part by Contract No. 2023A. 



5. Tenant Improvement Guide 
Supplement No. 4 

No. 88-0048 Proposed resolution amending the 

Tenant Improvement Guide (dated July 
1, 1982 Revised - Commission 
Resolution No. 82-0141) to include new 
limits of heavy metals; and adopting 
regulations on Hazardous Materials 
Emergency Response and Inventory; and 
amending Appendix D, Storage of 
Hazardous Substances in Underground 
Tanks. 



6. Travel /Training for Airport Representatives 

No. 88-0049 

Commissioner Bernstein asked which staff members would be going to 
the conferences listed. 



Minutes, March 1 , 1988, Page 5 



Mr. Turpen responded that staff tries to forecast the conferences the 
Airport would be interested in attending. Because the approval 
process so lengthy, staff routinely asks for approval for more trips 
than are attended. He said that out of the list of conferences staff 
selects, only 20-25 percent are attended. 

Commissioner Goosby said that while Mayor Feinstein discouraged 
Commissioners from participating in these conferences, he felt they 
provided a good opportunity for Commissioners to become more 
knowledgeable about airport problems. He said he would be interested 
in the current Mayor's attitude on this issue. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis added that she assumed that Commissioners 
would be willing to pay their own expenses. 

Commissioner Stephens agreed that it might be beneficial for a 
Commissioner to attend some of these conferences but agreed that it 
should not be at the Airport's expense. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Ms. Gittens said that the Human Rights Commission has finally voted on the 
two complaints filed by Mr. Washington against Duty Free Shoppers. She 
said that HRC has voted to accept the conciliation agreement that the HRC 
staff and a three member panel of their Commission negotiated with Duty 
Free. It was approved at the February 25 meeting. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if she knew the terms of the 
agreement. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the resolution was not specific to the various 
terms of the agreement, but she would get them from HRC. She said that 
HRC found no merit in the issue of falsification of employee records which 
was the main issue affecting the Airports lease. She reminded the 
Commission that Mr. Washington alleged that he had reason to believe that 
Duty Free had over-stated its employment of blacks, but that was found not 
to be the case. 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that Mr. Mickens had told her that he 
would write to the Governmental Operations Committee of the Board of 
Supervisors and ask them to recalendar the item, so it should appear one 
week from today. She explained that the approval process is still a month 
away as the item must go before the full Board twice after it leaves the 
Governmental Operations Committee, and then to the Mayor for signature. 

Mr. Turpen commented that this issue was resolved as staff predicted it 
would be six months ago. He said that no other conclusion was possible 
under the laws of the City. He assured the Commission that staff would do 
its very best to work expeditiously to get this in place. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff will provide the Commission with a full summary 
of the events as well as a copy of the agreement. 



Mr. Turpen told the Commission that starting the week of May 2 and running 
for approximately for two weeks, the hearing on the Q707 will be conducted 
in San Francisco by Judge Kane, an Administrative Law Judge. Mr. Turpen 
thought that the hearing would be held in the Federal Court building. 



Minutes, March 1 , 1988, Page 6 



3. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:17 AM to go into closed session. 




UuuUiuJk" 



Jgan Caramatti 
/mmission Secretary 



Minutes, March 1 , 1988, Page 7 



5 SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS O^PT. 
MAY 4 is@e 

SAN FRANv,«^ 



MINUTES 



APRIL 5, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 
Airports Commission 

April 5, 1988 



CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MI 



Regular Meeting of 
March 1, 1988 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



88-0050 



PAGE 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Mobile Catering Truck Operators 



"New Business" Heading for 
Commission Calendars 



3-4 
9 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Requestion the California 
Public Utilities Commisison 
(PUC) to Place a Moritorium 
on New or Pending Licenses for 
Ground Transportation Carriers 
Proposing to Serve San 
Francisco International Airport 

Selection of a Financial 
Advisor 

Resolution Awarding the 
Foreign Currency Exchange 
Lease 

Design Review: Boarding Area 
'E' Retail Concession Lease 



88-0051 



88-0053 



88-0052 



5-6 

6-7 

7 

7 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Retirement Resolution for 
Charles C. Athas 

Retirement Resolution for 
Leo Benedetti 



88-0054 
88-0055 



Type II Modification for 
Contract 1416C - Delta Air 
Lines Facil ities - South 
Terminal and Boarding 





Area 'C 


88-0056 


8 


8. 


Resolution Correcting Lease 








Modification 


88-0057 


8 


9. 


Rejection of All Bids: 







Contract 2023A - Two Airport 

Guard Shelters 88-0058 8 

10. Contract No. 1727: Emergency 
Pavement Repairs (1986-87) - 

Agreement to Close Out Contract 88-0059 8 

11. Rental Credit for Air France 88-0060 8 

12. Travel /Training for Airport 

Representatives 88-0061 9 



CORRESPONDENCE: 10 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 
CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 5, 1988 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of March 1, 1988 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0050 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby asked that the Commission direct staff to conduct 
further meetings with the catering truck operators, and, if possible, with 
the tenants who use their services. He said that there seems to be a 
certain amount of confusion and questions about livelihoods being 
threatened and investments in equipment at risk. He thought it would be 
beneficial for the Commission and staff to have this aired in order to 
determine 1f further direction can be given. 

Commissioner Goosby said it was his understanding that one catering 
service has already received permission to operate on airline space but 
that staff denied the permission. 

Commissioner Fleishell commented that if the airline was offering leased 
space there should be no problem. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis proposed that staff meet with the operators to 
determine if anything can be done to achieve an equitable resolution to 
this situation so that the issues of service and safety are satisfied. 

Commissioner Goosby said that some employee groups are upset because of 
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 3 



the distances they will have to travel to purchase food. He said that the 
postal employees have reacted to this move and that a representative is 
present to explain their concerns. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that the Airport embarked on a 
program to try and relocate some of the mobile catering units from the 
public right-of-way areas due to this impingement on the roadways and 
other concerns. He said that each operator is currently required to 
purchase a permit from the Airport for $100 a year. Staff felt that the 
Airport as well as the operators would be better served if they operated 
from leased property. The Airport would, in turn, forego the $100 permit. 
Mr. Turpen said that while the concept seemed like a good solution, 
problems arose as staff began to implement some of the particulars. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff would meet with the operators having problems, 
either individually or collectively, to try to come to resolution. He 
assured the Commission that it was never the intention to put these 
operators out of business or to "chase" them off the Airport; it was 
thought to be a good generic solution to a problem. He said he was 
certain staff could resolve the problems. Mr. Turpen said that the 
operators will reserve the right to return to the Commission if their 
concerns are not satisfactorily resolved. 

Commissioner Stephens felt that Mr. Turpen' s idea was a good one and did 
not feel it was necessary to hear comments from the operators at this time. 

Commissioner Goosby said that one operator wanted to submit signed 
petitions to the Commission and asked that those petitions be submitted to 
the Commission Secretary. He felt that the operators should be allowed to 
address the Commission if they wished. 

Commissioner Stephens agreed but felt that staff should first be given the 
opportunity to resolve this issue. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that the operators still had the right to 
address the Commission. 

Commissioner Bernstein agreed with Commissioner Goosby. He asked Mr. 
Turpen to meet with the operators. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff would set up a meeting but added that he did 
not think that every operator was having a problem. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that the operators leave their names with Mr. 
Turpen. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if the operator's concerns were not 
resolved to their satisfaction they could appeal to the Commission at its 
April 19 meeting. In the meantime, staff will meet at the Airport with 
the operators to deal directly with individual concerns. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that a "New Business" heading be added to future 
calendars. 



Minutes, Apri 1 5, 1988, Page 4 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item No. 1 was put over to the April 19 meeting. 

1 . Requesting the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to Place 
a Moratorium on New or Pending Licenses for Ground Transportation 
Carriers Proposing to Serve San Francisco International Airport 

Airport staff is recommending that the 
Airports Commission pass a resolution 
requesting the California Public 
Utilities Commission to place a 
moratorium on new and pending applica- 
tions from ground transportation 
carriers desiring to provide service 
to and from San Francisco 
International Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Public Utilities Commission has indicated 
that they would consider placing a moratorium on new or pending 
licenses for ground transportation access to San Francisco Airport if 
the Airports Commission made such a request. Mr. Turpen said that 
while Greig Harvey is concluding his report and the California PUC is 
in the midst of amending their rules and regulations, additional 
carriers continue to be introduced into a very congested environ- 
ment. He explained that most mass transit vehicles leave the Airport 
with very few passengers so these carriers are not being introduced 
because there is a problem satisfying demand. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this moratorium would not exceed 
12-months. He felt that the PUC and Airport staff needed the time to 
work together in order to come up with a better mechanism for 
controlling access to SFO on the basis of demand and responsiveness 
to demand as opposed to whoever applies. 

Mr. Turpen urged the Commission's support on the moratorium and gave 
his assurance that staff would return with some type of coordinated, 
comprehensive plan for dealing with the issue of access to the 
Airport. 

Ms. Marcia Smolens, representing Super Shuttle, said that Super 
Shuttle understood the Airport's problem with congestion and access. 
She told the Commission that the Peninsula has difficulty obtaining 
good service to the Airport and her company has been working to 
expand service to that area. She requested a two-week continuance in 
order to clarify any legal questions as to whether or not Super 
Shuttle will be affected by the moratorium. 

Mr. Turpen said that two weeks would not have a significant impact. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked when Greig Harvey's traffic study would 
be completed. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that she spoke with him yesterday 
and he indicated that the report would be ready this week. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he has had the rough draft for four 
months and has been waiting to hear from him. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that Mr. Harvey has taken on two 
additional issues in the meantime and she felt the results of the 
study will warrant the extra time he is taking. 



Minutes, Apri 1 5, 1988, Page 5 



Commissioner F 1 e i she 1 1 commented that there are other applications 
pending with PUC. On the basic issue of licensing, he said that the 
Airport should license vehicles rather than companies, which is the 
current practice. He argued that one carrier might have only one 
vehicle while another carrier might have 100 vehicles. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he had no objections to a continuance. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item will be placed on the April 19 
calendar. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Selection of a Financial Advisor 

No. 88-0051 Resolution authorizing Airport staff 

to request proposals from firms to 
serve as Airport Financial Advisor. 

Commissioner Stephens asked which companies would receive requests 
for proposals. 

Mr. Turpen responded that RFP's would be sent to every name staff can 
come up with. 

Commissioner Stephens assumed that Goldman Sachs and all the other 
major firms would be included. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
responded that 20 to 25 firms contacted the Airport before word was 
out that Solomon Brothers was abandoning the municipal market. 
Another 30 firms have contacted the Airport since that time. 

Commissioner Stephens said that several people have contacted him. 

Ms. Gittens asked for those names. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff will send the Commission a list of persons 
who have contacted the Airport or expressed an interest. He asked 
the Commission to provide staff with any names not included on that 
list. 

Ms. Gittens reminded the Commission that this is for a financial 
advisor not an underwriter. She said that while some firms handle 
underwriting they do not function as financial advisors. 

Commissioner Goosby highlighted the fact that the evaluation criteria 
contains language indicating that joint ventures are eligible. He 
asked how the five percent would be given. 

Ms. Gittens responded that there would be a point scale and the 
preference would be applied after the ranking. 

Commissioner Goosby asked why the selection committee would consist 
of other City employees rather than a panel of Airport people. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Airport people will be included however it 
Is a tradition in the City to include individuals from various 
departments on these panels. She said that the Airport does not have 
to follow that tradition, it was merely a suggestion. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if she felt it was an advantage. 
Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 6 



Ms. Gittens responded that it can be if other departments have had 
experience with other financial advisors and different deals. In the 
event that there are a lot of applications to screen she said that 
she would use the screening committee to pare the list down to a 
manageable number rather than be faced with interviewing 10 or 12 
firms. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked why airline representatives were not 
being included as they have more experience in airline financing than 
anyone. 

Ms. Gittens disagreed with Commissioner Fleishell, explaining that 
this is not airline financing, it's Airport financing and Airport 
revenue bonds. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that airlines are the bottom-line 
underwriters of our bonds. They do all the financing at every 
airport in the country. 

Ms. Gittens responded that unlike airline finance people, station 
managers and airline property managers, the people with whom staff 
deal, don't know anything about airport financing. 

Commissioner Stephens suggested using airline finance people. He 
felt that they would appreciate being included since the airlines, in 
the end, would end up paying for a large percentage of a bad finance 
package. 

Ms. Gittens said that airline finance people can be invited. 

Mr. Turpen said that there are airline people who have had that 
exposure but many of them have retired. 

Commissioner Goosby said that staff should make sure that those 
individuals coming from outside City service understand the City's 
priorities. He said he felt comfortable that other departments have 
the same priorities and sensitivities to minorities, women and the 
affirmative action program. He asked for a list of applicants. 

Mr. Turpen said that this would simply be an advisory group. He has 
no problem with seeking input from qualified people and putting that 
input in the proper perspective. He felt that staff's track record 
in that regard was well established. He reminded the Commission that 
it has the right of acceptance or refusal of staff's recommendations. 



Resolution Awarding the Foreign Curency Exchange Lease 

No. 88-0053 Resolution awarding the Foreign 

Currency Exchange Lease to Deak 
International Limited 

Mr. Turpen explained that this lease replaces the current operator of 
the foreign currency exchange facility. He said that the successful 
bidder, Deak International, operated at the Airport a number of years 
ago. 



Design Review: Boarding Area 'E' Retail Concession Lease 

No. 88-0052 Design review of the four stores under 

the Boarding Area ' E ' Retail 
Concession Lease. 

Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 7 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Retirement Resolution for Charles C. Athas 
No. 88-0054 

6. Retirement Resolution Leo Benedetti 
No. 88-0055 



7. Type II Modification for Contract 1416C 
Delta Air Lines Facilities 
South Terminal and Boarding Area 'C 

No. 88-0056 Contract modification to include 

additional work requested by Delta Air 
Lines and Airport. In accordance with 
agreement between Airport and Delta, 
the cost will be shared as follows: 
Delta: $91,442.64; Airport: $31,196.00. 



8. Resolution Correcting Lease Modification 

No. 88-0057 Resolution correcting clerical error 

in a prior modification of Lease and 
Use Agreement No. 82-0125, Trans World 
Airlines, Inc. 



9. Rejection of All Bids : 

Contract No. 2023A - Two Airport Guard Shelters 

No. 88-0058 Resolution rejecting the two (2) bids 

received for Contract No. 2023A. 



10. Contract No. 1727 : 

Emergency Pavement Repairs (1986-87) 
Agreement to Close Out Contract 

No. 88-0059 Resolution authorizing the Director of 

Airports to execute an agreement 
approving payment of monies not in 
dispute to allow for closing out the 
contract. 



1 1 . Rental Credit for Air France 

No. 88-0060 Resolution approving rent credit for 

Air France for work performed on 
behalf of the Airport. 

Minutes, Apri 1 5, 1988, Page 8 



12. Travel /Training for Airport Representatives 
No. 88-0061 



Discussion on Mobile Catering Truck Operations 

Commissioner Goosby asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. He 
said that petitions should be submitted to the Commission Secretary. 

Mr. John Stevens, Kitchen on Wheels, said he currently operates a mobile 
catering service at the Airport. He said he has been operating by permit 
for 11 years and since that time he has put approximately $100,000 into 
his operation. He said that he received a letter the other day cancelling 
his permit for no reason. 

Mr. Stevens said that for 10 years he has been trying to meet with Airport 

staff to correct some of the problems. He added that his rental is $100 

per month, not per year, and, he is required to carry insurance at a cost 
of $18,000 per year. 

Mr. Stevens said that since he has been at the Airport he has had two 
heart attacks and his wife has had two cancer operations. 

Mr. Stevens said that he does not know why United, AA or any other carrier 
would have an obligation to give him work. He said that he has been 
paying rent to the Airport for 11 years and he is about three miles from 
the terminals. He asked what will happen to him when he is put off the 
Airport and why his permit was being cancelled after 11 years. 

Mr. Stevens said that if there is a meeting at the Airport he wants the 
Commission to instruct Mr. Turpen to bring in a third party. 

Mr. Stevens said that the other day he asked an Airport staff member why 
his permit was being cancelled and she responded that she did not know. 
He said that he asked for a letter assuring him that his permit was not 
being cancelled so that his business could be taken over by another 
operator. When he asked where he could go he said he was told that that 
was his problem. 

Mr. Stevens said that problems could be corrected with a meeting but was 
told on several occasions that staff had no time. 

Mr. Stevens said that he was put out of business at the Airport three 
times and that he was put in his current location by Jerry Copelan, the 
head of property management. 

Mr. Stevens said that without a meeting these issues cannot be resolved. 

Commissioner Goosby assured Mr. Stevens that there will be a meeting. 

Mr. James Quiett, Jun's Catering, agreed with Dr. Goosby and felt it best 
to wait for a meeting with staff in order to give the Commission, staff 
and the catering truck operators an opportunity to reevaluate this issue. 
He said that he had some ideas of his own. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that staff will meet with the operators and if 
there are further complaints they can return to the Commission at a 
subsequent meeting. 



Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 9 



* * * 



G. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



* * * 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:36 AM to go into closed session. 



U++jujl- 



L an Caramatti 
/Cpmmi ssion Secretary 



Minutes, April 5, 1988, Page 10 



tkj siinorrs of thz utisid aiaLi::?^ 

To the Airports i/Onnlssion or To fhon It Lay Concern: 

Jun's Catering is performing a much necccd service to us, 
j.hey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and 
serve a variety of fresh hone cooked dinners. .heir prices are 
reasonable and within our ir.eans. *e never cpmplained about their 
foods. 

as everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 minutes lur.ch- 
breaks and we San 1 1 have tine to ret in our cars aid loo:: for 
food at ni^'ht. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 F.I . when almost all emplo- 
yees have fone hone so there is very little traffic. xhey leave at 
2:30 A. A. 

Cn Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. 'A. and depart at 2.30 A.I.'. 
3 unc ay. 

Jun's Catering ha«: been and continous tc five this vital 
service since 1S7S. 

DO,we, the employe:- of the united Airlines respectfully 
petition the Airport^ oonnis^ion or whoever is empowered to do so, 
to ple_se allow our.' s aaterinf to perform this important and n:eded 
Service to u r , 

*hanl:in~ you ever so much, we remain 







Ver;7) re rr^ctfull;- your*, 




*W 



i. EiiPLOTz::s of the ukitel Jirlikes 

To the Airports Comal sslon or To Ihom It May Concern t 

Jun's Catering is performing a much needed service to us, 
Thtj are eloseby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and 
serve a variety of fresh home cooked dinners. Their prices are 
reasonable and wltftln oar means. ■• never complained about their 
foods. 

as everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch- 
breaks and we don't have time to get in our oars and look for 
food at night. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 P.li, when almost all emplo- 
yees have gone home so there is very little ttaifie.They leave at 
2:30 A.L. 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A.Ll. and depart at 2:30 A. LI 
Sunday. 

Jun's Catering has been and contlnous to give this vital 
service since 1979. 

So, we, the employees of the United Airlines respectfully 
petition the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to do so, 
to please allow Jun's Catering to perform this Important and needed 
service to us. 

Thanking you ever so much, we remain 

Yery respectfully yours, 



4/ Xk feCW<^ QUJjhqdytLl 

MO Mr UM s&tts/^fUj^^^ 








Wuri^MjaA 




— ■ — •■ — ' f r^^ii'VP! 








CuMJ± 







H2 farzydZL^ s" \ 

! — 77 



^*-0 




fflfS 








T>ay sA^ i» t^ &*. 



D/W £t*>o£ * 






j| f Ju^ y *• 



s4* . ^^ 







\j 






=>/. 




^i 










^SP N^M , _ 

*? faff fa CMl jjjjfj 

SFooi/ 



$&>N/> 



6foPK 



^^ 



S's v/r ? 



ZfoPj; 






MU& sre fF 



^■x^ r 3Jr£^ — £ 








j^Ls. 



4- (l 







/ 



0f 



1'ni, J5KPL0TEES Cr TH2 H2RT2 
To the Airports Commission or To Whom It Llay Concern: 

Jun 1 s Catering is perf amine a much needed service to us. 
They are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday, 
and serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. Their prices 
are reasonable and within our means. We have never complained 
about their foods. 

As every body knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch- 
breaks and we don't have tine to £et in our cars and look for 
foods at ni~ht. 

On weekdays , they start at 5:00 F.I.'. when almost all the 
enployees he.ve eone ho:.e so there i= very little traffic. 
They leave at 2:30 A.I.'. 

On Saturday , they start at S:00 A. II. and depart at 2:30 
;..".:. Sunday, 

Jun' s Caterin~ has been and continous to £ive this vital 
service since 1S75. 

So i we t tbe employees of the E2RTZ .respectfully petition 
the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to do so, 
to please alio*. Jur.' s Catering to perforr. this important and 
needed service to us. 

Thanking you ever so much, we reanin 

Very respectfully yours, 
L^2> 







fiev^i- 



■Atrq 



if > 








^Jp<&Jfr~K<i 











<^2<^p^i 









j^k^ 



Mc^z^r sf& 



' *ttf 5-Fh 



1'HE B15L01ES3 CF TEI AI3?.IC\I* AIRLII7E3 

To the Airport uon~j ssion or io Whom It Lay Concern: 

Jim- s Catering is performing a much needed service to as, 
Ihey are closeby and they have £ood fresh sandwiches everyday, 
and serve a variety of fre e h home-cooked dinner s.aheir prices 
are reasonable and within our means. We have never complained 
about their foods. 

as everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 minutes 
lunch break? and we dont have time to fet in our cars and look 
for food at ni£*t. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 I,K when almost all 
the employees have cone home so there is very little traffic. 
They at 2:30 A.L 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A.:.: and depart at 

2:30 A.!.: Sunday. 

V- 

Jun' s Catering has been continous to yive this vital 

service since 1979. 

So, we, the employees of the American Airlines 
respectfully petition the Airport Commission or whoever empowered 
to do so, to please allow Jun's Catering to perform this important 
and needeo service to us. 

Thankinc you ever so much, we regain 



Very Kespe.ctfully yours, 




■ ft""--»: 



AUUK^o; 




Ib^n^lf.'Ff' '4% 



J.& 



J.fytcy.^.21AiJ.Sy:. 






/ ■) ' * '-■ t/\ / - 

^3fe>_iW~ 

..U^--X.MMwc 




-- 1 — - — r~i / 

1,1 »i i< i* ' * 

§i _ jfJL* ./_ *2 r_ i&> .f _ _ Ii*Oi 4 ^ b^ 

ll3&.&i^StJ&& 



t- f f ± <■ 



U^^n btfjkov*' 



^)-iJ.i^yl&'?. 



I£i3jji^: 



ST 



- ■ ■ w 



this firiPLOxsss on' Bustci*. aviatic:: 

•j.0 the Airports oom~i e sion or j.o Whoa it Kay Concern: 

jun's catering is performing a much needeC service to us 
A hey are closeby and they have cood fresh sandwiches everyday, 
and serve a variety of fresh hone-cookec dinners. xheir prices 
are reasonable and within our means. ne have never co-plained 
about their foods. 

As everybody knows, we have onlj 15 to 30 ainutes lunch- 
breaks and we don't have tiae to cet in our cars and look for 
food at ni~ht. 

on weekdays , they start at 5:00 P,i:.when al:_o~t all the 
eaployees have £one hone so there is very little traffic. 
ahey leave at 2:30 A. I;. 5 

un Saturday?, they start at 8:00 A.U.anc 7 depart 2;30 A.I.'. 
^und ay . 

uun's Catering has been and continous to £ive this vital 
service since 197S. 

oo,we,the eaployees of the cutier Aviation respectfully 
petition the Airports i/omiission or whoever is empowered to do 
so, to pleesc allow uun's Uat'rintfto pcrfora this important and 
needed service to u c . 

xhankin; you ever so much, we remain 



Very respectfully yours, 











VUL fit M 2SMMM. 



To tlx Airports Commission or To Whon It Lay concern: 

Jun' s Cateringiis performing a much needed service to us. 
They are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday, 
and serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. Their prices 
arc reasonable and within our neans.We have never cocplaincd 
about their foods. 

as every body knows ,we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch- 
breaks and we don't have tine to ge$ in our cars and look for 
foods at night. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 F.il. when almost all the 
employees have gone home so there is very little traffics 
They leave at 2:30 A.£i. 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A, 1.1. and depart at 
2:30 A. H. Sunday. 

Jun' s Catering has been and continous to give this vital 
since 1979. 

So, we, the employe-is of the Dyn Airlines respectfully 
pctitio:: the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to 
do so, to please alio"' Jun' s Catering to perform this important 
and needed service to us. 

Thanking you ever so much, we remain 

[ery respectfully yours, 




^M^^^jJt^^Z^^. 



I 
XSS KL'-PLC^b Of TIC 1^113..::.. AIHLT.31 

To $he Airports commission or io T.'hon It Lay Concern: 

Jun's Catering is performing a much needed service to us. 
.hey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday, 
and serve a variety of fre!-h hone-cookeo dinner*. Their prices 
are reasonable and within our means. «e have never complained about 

their foods. 

as every booy knows, re have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch- 
breaks and we don't h^ve time to get in our cars and look for 
foods at night. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 i-.;...when alr.ost all the emp- 
loyees have gone home so there is very little traffic. Ihey 
leave at 2:30 A.I.".. 

OnSSaturdays,they start at 8:00 A.:,., and depart at 2:30 
A.!'., our.day. 

«un*s Catering has been and continous to give this vital 
service since 1979. 

So, we the employees of the. Mexicana: Airlines, respectfully 
petition the Airports Commission or whoever empowered to do so, 
to please allow Jun' s catering to perform this important and 
needed service to us. 

a 1'hanking you ever so much, we remain 

very respectfully yours, 

r l^.H&;. 

m^qM^JL-.m%. 

o^ sx.„ - 

^_MX- 





tel: e;:ilcy3is cf t:::; cc:;'.x."z:'t:.l 

To the Airports Connission or io Ihoa it Llay Concern; 

Jun'a Catering is performing a nuch needed service to vs. 
.hey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and 
they serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. _heir prices 
are reasonable within our aeans. nehave never complained about 
their foods. 

As everybody knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch- 
breaks and we don't have tine to get in our cars and look for 
foods at ni~ht. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 t'.k.when almost allthe enpio- 
yeeshave gone hone so there is little traffic. They leave at 2:30 



On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A.'.!. and depart at 2:30 A.II. 
Sunday. 

dun' s Catering has been and continous to give this vital 
service since 1979. 

i*o,ve,the employees of the employees of the continental. 
respectfully petition the Airports commission or whoever is 
empowered to do so, to please allow dun's Catering to perform this 
important and needed servicp^o/us. 

L£C~i icing youyev/r/ so m/ch, we remain 




VBty respectfully yoq 
ft 



zjfct£^&£^ 





<UZQ 



-4^ 




A* 



yg£ 



te. 



^« 



g^^ 





1; -7*ffi 



SHi zJifLOYiio Of ThI AVIS 
To the Airports Commission or xO ihon it May uoncern: 

Juris Catering is ,perf orninc a much needed service to us. 
xhey are closeby and they have iooC fresh sandwiches everyray, 
anc" serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners, .heir price- 
are reasonable and within our means. we have never complained 
about their foods. 

as every body knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lunch- 
brealis and we don t have tine to £et in our cars and look f c r 
foods at ni~ht. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 P.I.;, when almost all the 
employees have rone hone so there is very little traffic, 
xhey leave at 2:30 A.:.;. 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 /..I.:, ant depart at 2:30 
A.:... bund ay. 

Juivs Catering h£.s been and continouR to live thir vital 
service- since 1979. 

So, we, the employees of the /.vis respectfully petition 
the Airports vomeis^ion or whoever is enpowerco to do so, 
to please allow Jun s oaterinc to perform this important 
and needed service to us. 

ihankin^ you ever so much, we remain 



Very respectfully yours, 





i£E EI'-FLOTIJES CF TEE DELTA AlELIirES 

To the Airport Connission or io nhom It Lay Concern: 

Jun' s Catering is performing a much needed service to us, 
ihey are closeby and they have gooc fresh sandwiches everyday, 
and serve a variety of fresh hose cooked dinners. Their prices 
are reasonable and within our means. we have never complained 
about their foodr. 

As everybody knows we have only 15 to 30 ninutes lunch 
breaks and we don't have time to get in our cars and look for 
foods at night. 

un weekdays, they start at 5:00 t.l. when almost all the 
employees have gone hone so there is very little traffic. 
They leave at 2:30 A. I.: 

On Saturdays, they st£jrt at 8:00 A.:, and depart at 2:30 
A.M Sunday. 

Jun' s Caterin;; has been and continous to give this 
vital service since 1972. 

So, we, the employees ofthe Delta Airlines respectfully 
petition the Airport commission or whoever is papowered to do 
so, to please allow Jun' s Catering to perform thi* important 
and needed service to us. 

Thanking you ever so much, we remain 

Very Respectfully yours, 

JL 6 ud y 



333 oo tUteato MtfLgMM it* cfr 




UaulL MOU*- ,7'.r MfKftltttG %!' JFJL:J50L"c> 





3 x"f 7 (£M.£iOr<-uco -AOc- S 



si^vt^ *K.«*CD wvc- <_> C\ 



Pft«x>?z*93 fcg; 9//^ 



NAI>S: 



hXMLWLF 




2% aJdcou^c^ 3r 



THB EI^PLOTisES OP ASSOCIATED LIIXUSINE 
To the Airport Commission or To >Thom It Llay Concern; 

Jun' s Catering, is performing a much needle- service to us; 
They are closely and they have rood fresh sandwiches everyday and 
serve a variety of fresh hone cooked dinners. Their price- are 
reasonable an: within our means. We never complained about their 
foods. 

As everybody kno'.v w: have only 15 to 30 minute- lunch breal: 
and ^e don't have tine to cet in our cars and look for food at 
nicht. 

On weekdays, they start at 5;00 I.M when almost all 
employees have rone hone so there is very little traffic. They 
leave at 2:30 A.i'.. 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. 11 and oepart at 
2.30 :..:.: Sunday. 

Jun' s Catering has been and continous to five tki* vital 
service since 1975. 

S0,".'o, the employees of the Associated Limousine 
respectfully petition the Airport Commission or whoever is empo- 
wered to do so, to please allov; Jun' 3 Catering to perform this 
important and needed service to us. 

Thanking you ever so much, we remain 

Very respectfully yours, 











• • • 



•'--^- : 



ADBL^ ,5: 



JeUvJ £o&rf& 



M hmm#pi5& 




SbWQ fQJ^JU 



S^JkO^ & C% 



iJlB aKri.0X&£.5 or F S A 

To the Airports uommission or 10 Whom it May uoncer/i : 

dun's Catering is performing e much needed service to us. 
-hey are closehy and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday, 
anclserve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners. xkeir prices 
are reasonable and within our neans.*e have never complained 
about their foods. 

as everybody knows, we have only 15 to 30 minutes lur.ch- 
break* anc" we don' t have tine to get in our cars and look for 
food at night. 

On weekdays , they start at 5:00 r. :.. when almost all the 
employees have gone hone so there is very little traffic, -hey 
leave at 2:30 A..'.:. 

un Saturdays, they start at 8; 00 A.I."., and depart at 2:30 
A.i-u. Sunday. 

oun-s catering has been and continous to give this vital 
service since 1S7S. 

so.we the employees of the PSA , respectfully petition the 
Airports commission or whoever is empowered to do so, to please 
allow dun's Oaterinc to perform this important and n.eded service 
to us. 

"Thanking you ever so much, we remain 







'BbJ 



<3- 



S5 



faoPh 






4iJL 



[+n^L+ 



£L_ 




f^pj^uA^d±- 



GLsdLz (gtAe* 







<X2~ 



i CMS 



3/9(5 /^v3. y ^A^ &>e Sa^o &s?l;aJ o Q^ 
3$ I- 3/s-f fli/£ ^/^ fO^CiSO. CA 






4V0 La**L^ «Sfr g^a^avJ7g^ 




/C<£> 6-.s«, if £» M*-h, 






THE E::iLCT"-I7 of tie air (F.aft service 

To the Airport Connission or To Whon It Hay concern: 

Jun' s Catering is perfor::in~. a audh needed service to u*. 

They are clo=eby and they have good fresh sandriche^- everyday and 
serve a variety of fr«sh hone-cooked dinners. Their prices are caa- 
soiiable and within our me am. We never conplaine- about their foods. 

As everybody knoTr* -rre have only 15 to 30 ninutes lunch 

breaks and re don't have tine to get in our car^ and look for food 
at ni^ht. 

On weekdays, they start at 5:00 F.LI rhen all the employees 
have gone hone so there is very little traffic. They leave at 2:30 A. 1.1. 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. II and depart at 2:30 A.LI 
Sunday. 

Jun' s catering hz* been and continou- to rive this vital 
service since 1C79. 

So,v:e the aircraft service employee'- respectfully petition 
the Airport Comission or whoever is enpov.ered to do so, to please 
allor Jun' s Catering to perform this inportant and needec" service to us 

Thanking you ever so nuch,vre renain 

Very Respectfully iour-, 




/£s, rr %£o 






ms: 



/4s./- ^./:o 

^sgr 

l^gfg s J <?^^Jl jLUl .spa 




$LJ^A (U* -f^ 




y. Ajx/ Pi jj/i&r 



te>& £&»&. 




rroe .sites. 






£j£0 

Fr) 



r 



JLk 



L=. 



SfO 



pf^zz 



SR^ 



4^4 



&PxD 



frt 



g^O 









1HE ELrLOYii-3 CF T.L, iXAi:i.. 1J3C .ami: "J" 
To the Airport^ uonaission or j.o Y. r ho.". it May uoncsrii: 

Jim' s Caterinr is perforrdnc a i.uch neeced service to us, 

*hey are closeby anc". they have 5006 fresh sancwiches everyday and 

serve a variety of fre"h hone-cooked dinnsr^.iheir prices arc 

reasonable and within, our neans.We never complained about their 

r t 

foods. 

As everyday knows we hafce only 15 to 30 ninutes lur.chireaks 

and we don't have tine to £jet in our cars and look for food at 
nirht. 

un weekdays 1 "they start at 5:00 1 ..... when almost all emplo- 
yers have cone ho..;e ,-o there is very little traffic. .hey leave 

at 2.30 ;..;:. 

Cn 3aturcayr.tr.cy start at 8:00 A. A ar.d dep.rt at 2i50 A. I.. 
Sun " ay . 

dun's Catering ha? been ar.d ccntinoue to five this vital 
service since 1S7S. 

oo,T.'e,t-:e employees 01? the i<orthvest Airlines respectfully 
petition the Airport- uo.:idssion or whoever is er.povere;" to do no, 
to lpea^e allov dun' s Cataerin~ to perform this important and 
nee'ed service to us. 

.hanking you ever so nuch, ::e regain 




»ery respec4£u>iy yours, 







-&m^/>jz c ^y// 




i 
fHE EMPLOTfcES OF THE IORTff»EST AIRLINES 
To the Airports Commission or lo Whom It May Concern: 

Job's Catering is performing a such needed service to as, 
They are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and 
serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinners .Their prices are 
reasonable and within our means, fe never oeamlainad about their 
foods* 

As everyday knows we hate only 15 to 30 minutes lunchereaks 
and we don't have tine to get In our ears and look for food at 
might. 

On weekdays, they start at 5x00 F.K. when almost all emplo- 
yees have gone hone ,so there is very little traffic. They leave 
at 2x30 A.M. 

On Saturdays, they start at 8:00 A. la and depart at 2:30 A.U. 
Sunday. 

Jon's Catering has been and eontlnoue to give this vital 
service since 1979. 

3o,ve,the employees of the fcorthwesi Airlines respectfully 
petition the Airports Commission or whoever is empowered to do so, 
to lpease allow Jon*s Cataering to perform this important and 
needed service to as. 

Thanking yoo ever so much, we remain 

Very respectfully yours, 




I^WiK L^dL nrvCr^ Y/Jb a*~- 



k (A 




t::i e::iloy^_" ct 



To the Airports uonroission or to Whom It Lay Concern: 



Jun' s Catering is performing a much needed service to u*. 
Ihey are closeby and they have good fresh sandwiches everyday and 
a variety of fresh hone-c. okec 3 dinners. Their prices are reason- 
able and within our means. i»e have never complained about their 
foods. 

As evey^bpdy know- , we have only 15 to 30 minute c lur.chbraak 
and we don't have tine to get in our c_rs and look for fooc at 
night. 

vn weekdays, they start at 5:00 P. I... when almost all employees 
have cone home so there is very little traffic, ihey leave at 2 : 30A.id 

On satur&L.ys, they start at 8:00 A.l.'.anc" depart at 2:30 A. II. 
Sunday. 

Jim's catering has been and continous to give this vital 
service since 197S. 

so, we, the employees of the Pan An respectfully petition 
the Airports uomi<?sion or whoever is empowered to do so f to please 
allow oun's Catering to perform this important an A rieeceo service 
to us. 

x hanking you ever so much, we remain 






£R& 




f^.-, ,/?/7A 



pp fig 




r tfj m^[ 



k/ *r>x 







ZzAzLL 




^L 






JUN'S CAT3RISG 
65S luoana Way 
Pacifica.Ca. 94044 

To the Airport Connission or To Whom It May Concern, 

On Feb. 9 f 1933, we recieved a letter from the Airport 
Connission stating that, effectisfl? April 15, 1933, catering trucks 
will be prohibited Jroa conducting business on the Airport's unlea- 
sed property. 

That, in order to continue operating at the Airport, 
we hove to obtain a non-terainal tenants approval to pari: on it's 
premises and be treated as its vender. 

The Airport recognizes that the catering truch ope- 
rators provide a service that is both appreciated and needed 1 by 
their non- terminal tenants. 

Jun' s Catering serve? not only made- to -order fresh 
sandwiches daily but also a variety of fre c h hone-cooked dinners. 

The Connission has also cited that the reason for 
terminating our perrj-ts is because we are blocking traffic. 

Jun' s Catering would lite to inforn everyone that 
it is the only catering truck that works nights and Saturdays when 
there is very little traffic, since alnost all the employees have 
gone hone. 

We are law-abiding citizens and we have never been 
involved in any accident in all of our nine years of service at 
the Airpo.t. 

The employees of the non-tcrminai tenants would like 
us to continue giviiig then our vital and much needed service. 

as proof of their intentions, we enclosed signed pe- 
titions urging whoever is empowered to do so, to please let Jun 1 s 
Catering to continue our service to then. 

There are 15 different petitions from 15 different 
airlines plus the Post Office. 

These are the people who would like us to stay. 

Hoping for a favorable consideration, wc remain. 

Very respectfully yours, 

Celso S.Hu(jberiz4 *p. Co-Owner 
Conchita S.Huqueriza uo-Owner 



mmm.m 



Kay or Art Agnos 
Kenbers of tlE San j-rancisco 
Board of bupervisors 
Alports Commission 



RE: £ u. a' a, C_&te.ri_n£ 
653 I.oana ..'ay 
Facifica,Ca. , 94044 
(415) 355-3104 

OwI-ZHB: Celso Huqueriza and Conc'.iita Huqueriza 

'we, the owners and employees of the Associated Liuousir.es 
of the San Francisco, strongly urce the retention of Jun's Cater- 
ing as a food service vender at 3. P. C. Their business location 
and schedule (hoad 6 and 2), weekdays 5:00 r,.... to 2:30 .-'..:.. and 
Saturdays 8:00 ..,'., to 2:30 .-'...) are perfectly suited to our 
irregular hours and v:e fine their reasonably priced, £.ood quality 
food and service unavailable iron any other source near the air- 
port. 3y prohibiting Jun' s Catering from operating at S.F.C. , 
you deprive some 90 Associated Limousine drivers and nany other 
companies at a much needed anc" appreciated service. 



tt 




fa 



.fy*-*2- 




flAnrtft 



f\it f^ f 



A ddress 

<ft9 tfivstsi Ave & 



* yC 



*~> 






thi £ailoy-ES of different ccai...~i-~ th.-a dc 

BUSII"E3" AT TliZ AIR PORT'. 

To the Airport Commission or To TThom It May Concern; 

Jun' s Catering is performing a much nice" of service 
to us. They arc clo^eby and they have food fresh sandwiche* 
everyday, anc" serve a variety of fresh hone-cooked dinner ". 
Iheir prices are rea~onable and within our means. We have 
never complained about their food*-. 

As everybody knows, we have only 15to 30 minute^ 
lunch breaks and re don't have tine to ret in our cars anc' 
loot for fooc" at ni^ht. 

On weekd ays, they start at 5:00 ?..'.. when almost all 
the employees have rone hone *o there is very little traffic, 
ihey leave at 2:30 A. A.. 

On Saturday?, they "tart at 8:00.'. A", and depart at 
2:30 JLK; Sunday. 

Jun' ? Catering ha c been and continous to ; r ;ive this 
vital service since 197S. 

So, we, the employees of different companies that do 

business at the airport respectfully petition the Airport 

is 

Commission or whoever empowered to do so, to please ellow 

A 

Jun' s Catering to perform this important and needed service to us. 
Thanking you ever so much, we remain. 

Very respectfully yours, 



ILjd mt • 




^f^A Jky L. 



t 



rtfine or cohPfiuy 








(c/fl 



CL^aSl 

jit: 




«\\fifrikMs' 

Jkte-jkk&£> , 

.s^&i_U^. 








J^iJ^E L 

j^t^^r. 

P^/ve/tit we f£ci ay itt 7£uck 

Q]>f_^ >/jf-^ 

fJlAjfl 

VjZJfc 

usP^> 



£f 




"^^ j^j izi& az 








W. 






~^/ShJ^ 4<12rzXzf^^^ 







s 




to^ la£ 



l *- ^^ -»j >^' 






^^= 




s>e 



d-J~ 



/?.*£ 



B4 



C<5> 



^ZfiL 



£^^rf^^?/^ 



£>P/V 




J%7^L>pJft7^& 



^\/ 






A^k^ 






^^ss^ ^ 



f^-^s^ 



-r& 



Ja 



L=. 



TO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

We heard news that effective April 15, 1988, the Airports 
Commission will no longer allow Acosta Catering to park at certain 
locations which are convenient and readily accessible for us. 

As everybody knows we only have 15 to 30 minutes for our 
breaks and we don't have sufficient time going around looking for 
a place to buy food at night and the wee hours in the morning. 

On weekdays, they start rendering service at 1:30 a.m. until 
8:00 a.m., when there's hardly any food place that is open. In the 
afternoon, they alternate hours with Jun's Catering when there is 
very little traffic. 

On Sundays, they start at 1:00 a.m. and depart at 12:00 midnight, 
Acosta Catering serves fresh food daily at reasonable prices and we 
have been happy with their services since I98I. 

Therefore we, the employees working in the vicinity of the 
airport respectfully petition the Airports Commission or whomsoever 
is empowered to do so to please allow Acosta Catering to continue to 
perform this important and much needed service to us. 



Thanking you very much for your kind consideration, we remain 



Very respectfully yours, 




sry respectfully yours 




Cfa'tM 




aSjfc- Gw*v 






> 

Company 

flip, at <3*'— 




4^ 



TO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. 

We heard news that effective April 15 f 1988, the Airports 
Commission will no longer allow Acosta Catering to park at certain 
locations which are convenient and readily accessible for us. 

As everybody knows we only have 15 to 30 minutes for our 
breaks and we don't have sufficient time going around looking for a 
place to buy food at night and the wee hours in the morning. 

On weekdays, they start rendering service at ls30 a.m. until 
8t00 a.m., when there fs hardly any food place that is open. In the 
afternoon, they alternate hours with jun's catering when there is 
very little traffic. 

On Sundays, they start at It 00 a.m. and depart at 12s 00 midnight. 
Acosta Catering serves fresh food daily at reasonable prices and we 
have been happy with their services since 1981. 

Therefore we, the employees working in the vicinity of the 
airport respectfully petition the Airports Commission or whomsoever 
is empowered to do so to please allow Acosta Catering to continue to 
perform, this important and much needed service to us. 

Thanking you very much for your kind consideration, we remain 

Very respectfully yours, 



Name 




L &&> 7)crycJL 



Company 



UAL 



m 



«. 



£& 



y 7 , 



CO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION OR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN i 

We heard news that effective April 15 . 1988, the Airports 
Commission will no longer allow Acosta Catering to park at certain 
Locations which are convenient and readily accessible for us. 

As everybody knows we only have 15 to 30 minutes for our 
breaks and we don't have sufficient time going around looking for a 
place to buy food at night and the wee hours in the morning. 

On weekdays, they start rendering service at It 30 a.m. until 
8x00 a.m., when there! 8 hardly any food place that is open. In the 
afternoon, they alternate hours with jun's catering when there is 
trery little traffic. 

On Sundays, they start at It 00 a.m. and depart at 12t00 midnight 
Acosta Catering serves fresh food daily at reasonable prices and we 
have been happy with their services since 1981. 

Therefore we, the employees working in the vicinity of the 
airport respectfully petition the Airports Commission or whomsoever 
is empowered to do so to please allow Acosta Catering to continue to 
perform. this important and much needed service to us. 

Thanking you very much for your kind consideration, we remain 

Very respectfully yours, 



Name 




: &<ZU<L 



company 
falsi H^r.Crerl.'J 

SS£s 

M fit. 



Wane 



/7?.Wa/ JijMA 




ESS. MM Z 




■ ILlLp ^^5 







l<,/«ry A 



■?H*f, 



" pmpanv 

CM. ^'juu 'lmc . 

JkLhL 4/ . 



1/^ 



I s;* i L ^ : ^ 



^2 



c / / 






f jg fc ^ 



.\,k^<~>,- 



fotLLlLfik* foods 

HL£l 



'M, 



~ 



'jtrrtw** fgg ££ 



^jg i/^. 




LUfnteiU 



Name 



a 



iff 



unpany 






Do JLJ. ^ A".> U^M~^< 



& 







U^ujtikJZ 



r< 



U 






J^e^ 



tLa 




^s 



s^— 



5s s 4 



T>r: 













^9?fc L*£%24& 



t^^id^^L 



\ tlva^ 



trAtLtfiZ 





//"tfr^ 






Oj5-yw-a— 



^^^ 



c9c-J 




fa g ^^ 



fl&fl 



ArzcFAFT services /vr f c 



&Au 



AA. 
UjJA 






/ Name 






Albeit <4%<s6< 




1^c4v^ 




2m. &-^c^ 



J \$OA^l~Li 




^4a 



'M-Wia- 






£ 



g 




%y(u^' 



•a*-*\.<^> 



-ft 



U)e*JL^ AxAuvt" 



^i 



ppany 



"*> 



0>yj -/I/yz 



Q.VPW 



r/L7> >?/? 



4 ^ y / 



^ 



^-// 



iLii, 



M-Au 



/7>^ 






// 1 




£££ 






^ 



^■/'/ g . 



M6 



&&*!&* 



<T73 



^Ab 






U^^ye^r 



Wane 



C ompany 






^9^ 











is&A .^WA? 



?9aaa^i 



Z2 






Cqal&lzzJz 



£g 

^ 

ASM A*y<yt^i *&Y^\c e 
/9-S~/ y /free *«r~ ^c-TU'tr 

TAiAiC(/A7i ( jr Truer **&- 



UM iu. 






XUM. 



Ah 



'■■ 



^.iV (fij&d?>l ' ; « / J KS ■- III I 1.- y J . « 






' z&ha 



6L 




'U 



~*Jj,SKiP,. 



teecs* 



£± (J ^h--^f-^i^:j~o 



u£g~ 



rOr\VT\e-^X\ \&Vv » 



Name 




a C M 



vU,v 



— ■ r^ 

que* ^TtZigAM^i 




doJU-y WWa* \\L\yp r' 




0hch*£j}££lL 



tL 4L Si^ 



^ 



lCQ-W^<>i>' fcM^l^lo-yA/^C- a" 



^ 




It 1 



a — «->. - 



— Ty5 cr- 



SS^Vka^^ 






J { 



3Vgg£ Gi 



~s$ex*L few 




*7 v pe^iuf '-e 
AAt- 



— ^%- 

SIS 



£ 



/<rC- 






J& 



-?,,-> Ti^^ 



t' 



*) PJ A 






-PT.d 



y^ <^g/y\ 



%^M 7 1 






^Pb 



& l 



Name 




^%^y 



7 

^Vi?' — - 







i=f^=^ 



**' UUto 3<rti 




Company 

'7X 



/V- s-z 



APr 



kk 



_^> 



g±2t 



7"^ /? 



i£^ 



P "1 F 



£U- 



&>J£* 



Mfy 



M 



£ 



ML 



Jr-Uo 






T)*- 



-tW A 



Co 



CO 



fi f>T Sf o 



Qg fcfcg 



umTep iaL>iog3 



Asm. 



A ?" 



r^SE^Zzl^L fiV'\1\-* {jteL**^ 



Name v,onii>any 

'War/ %fi'* { JkJ&* 



\*&tXk . ' i(Jr^K^^ 






1>HL 



d/.Vf i /»9u/U r nT . Vfuw,// A.&r.ni- Cjjfr /ict 

' M IS 



r^oj^ 









Waae 



inpanv 



o^?y jt yy5- 



/?? A>Sf- 






1/t/V. 



/}^^ £ ^gj£ 




^fy^2> 






L-PAufb ftU>\U 



j& 



g "fr 



. ^ ^' , 



^ 



-L-L2. 



- t :^T 







=k 






b£ 



i re 



Jk 



3~*T 






It 



doKrn^Km 






IsA/f'npto 






7K 










!WM 



m 







£ 



/sfc* 



> Jtl 



£yw-A^ 



X£w 



gjtD&s^ 



<^*-S^ 



m^M^z 




3^ 






^=^- 



;'^ 



7T 



/tti**i-f£ 



9 A/* A J^itfL'!/*"- 







I h>any 



2fl£. 



■US*' 



U/M 



u : a jL 



d£L 



frlfir 






2 



{fyr.A<^ £££* 



* 






-2. 



7«- 






*-&/. 



tZi/£2<J / 6Zg*J 






1^.. SkfXuV 



* SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENT 0*^1 

WAY 16 1988 



APRIL 19, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEfM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Ai rports Commi ssion 

April 19, 1988 



CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
April 5, 1988 



88-0062 



SPECIAL ITEMS: 

Employee Commendation - 
Russell J. Mayweathers 



88-0063 



3-4 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



PENDING LEGISLATION: 

State Legislation - AB 4288 



88-0064 



4-5 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Requesting the California Public 

Utilities Commission (PUC) to 

Place a Moratorium on New or 

Pending Licenses for Ground 

Transportation Carriers Proposing 

to Serve San Francisco Intern' 1 

Airport 88-0065 

South San Francisco and Mill brae 
Home Insulation Funding - FY88-89 
($266,300.00) 88-0066 



5-7 



C0NSEN T CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Re^ect'on of All Bids and 
Author ; zat : on for Re-Bid. 
Contract No. 1912 - Tunne 1 
'6 - Waterproofing & Finishes 
- South Terminal 



■0067 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 19, 1988 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward F 1 e i s he 11. Vice President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 1988 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0062 



D. SPECIAL ITEMS: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

1 . Employee Commendation 

No. 88-0063 Resolution of Commendation for Russell 

J. Mayweathers, 1987 recipient of the 
William R. O'Brien Perpetual Award for 
Employee Excel lence. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, introduced Mr. Russell Mayweathers 
to the Commission and congratulated him on being the first employee 
to receive the William R. O'Brien Perpetual Award for Employee 
Excellence. He sa'd that his professionalism exemplifies the nighest 
standards of employee dedication and the standards which were set by 
Mr. 0'3rien in his 34 years of service to the City and the Airport as 
the Airport's first engineer. Mr. Mayweathers, an Airport emplc.ee 
for the past 24 yea^s and a custodial supervisor for 9 years, has 
consistenly aemonst; atred outstanding performance in carrying out his 
duties and in the p'omotion of good w ; 1 1 between employees, tenants 

Minutes Ap. H 19, 1988. Pa^je 3 






and other City departments. Mr. Turpen told the Commission that Mr. 
Mayweathers is a credit to the Airport and was pleased to honor him 
in this fashion. 

The following is a complete text of Mr. Mayweathers comments: 

It is a privilege to be the very first recipient of the William 
O'Brien Award for Employee Excellence. It is a double pleasure 
to receive an award for doing your job, and for enjoying what 
you do. 

I have always felt it's my duty to give my all as an Airport 
employee. My job deserves my loyalty, dedication and the extra 
effort that I've been trained to do by my parents, by my tour in 
the military, and as an American citizen. 

When I came to be a supervisor for the Airport I made an effort 
to put my personal philosophy into my methods of supervising, to 
make it a point to work with my fellow supervisors, to treat my 
work crews as I have wanted to be treated, and to treat the 
public and other Airport employees as well as airline personnel 
and tenants with respect and cooperation. 

I want to thank Mrs. Joiner for nominating me and Mr. Murray for 
being there to give me assistance and support when I needed it. 
I also want to thank my wife, Alice, for listening and for 
giving me her love and support when I would bring the job home 
with me. 

Thank you. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners. 









F. PENDING LEGISLATION: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 
2. State Legislation 






No. 86-0064 Report on AB 4288 (Farr) and 

recommendation that the Commission 
officially oppose said legislation. 

Mr. Turpen explained to the Commission that because the North 
Terminal has multiple flights to Canada it would be subject to this 
legislation. He recommended opposing this piece of legislation. He 
also told the Commission that the State legislature is trying to 
dictate revenue streams for the Airport. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that tne City has involved a lobbyist. 

Mr. Turpen said that the City of San Francisco has retained Ms. Helen 
Dowden as the its lobbyist and will be her sole client. He said that 
the Mayor's legislative liaison between the departments and Ms. 



Minutes , Ap i 1 19, 1983, Page 4 



Dowden is Claude Everhart, the Mayor's Deputy for Governmental 
Affairs. He said that he is not aware of any decision regarding San 
Francisco's Washington advocate. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Requesting the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to Place 
a Moratorium on New or Pending Licenses for Ground Transpotation 
Carriers Proposing to Serve San Francisco International Airport 

No. 88-0065 Airport staff is recommending that the 

Airports Commission pass a resolution 
requesting the California Public 
Utilities Commission to place a 
moratorium on new and pending 
applications for ground transportation 
carriers desiring to provide service 
to and from San Francisco 
International Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item was before the Commission two weeks 
ago and was put over at the request of a carrier. He said that 
Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, indicates that there are four or 
five new applications pending. 

Mr. Fein told the Commission that there are a total of six applica- 
tions pending before the PUC. There are four on-demand operators, 
one serving Santa Clara, one for Contra Costa, and two additional 
on-demand operators to San Francisco. In addition, there is one 
scheduled operator to Solano County and another scheduled operator 
for San Francisco. 

Mr. Turpen asked Mr. Fein how many scheduled operators there would be 
to San Francisco if these applications were approved. 

Mr. Fein responded that there would be at least seven van operators 
to the City in addition to several scheduled operators. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport must get a handle on this. He said 
that anyone applying to the PUC for a permit is getting one but the 
market is not expanding at the rate as the capacity. The operates 
are fighting for a share of the market in order to survive and the 
Airport has the obligation to ensure that the system remains rational 
and not "deregulated". 

Mr. Turpen said that rather than continue to follow the PUC's 
informal policy of deregulation he encouraged the Commission to 
approve this item while retaining the right to waive the moratorium 
on a case-by-case basis. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what happens to those pending 
applications if the Commission passes this resolution. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that will be up to the PUC. He said that 
he has been led to believe that requests from the Airports Commission 
for a moratorium will be granted until our ground transportation 
study has been completed. 



M- ,tes, Ap i i 19, 1985. Page 5 



Mr. Fein added that the fate of the six pending applications might 
depend on how far they are in the process. He said that the last two 
applications were sent in this week and have not yet begun the 
process; the other four have been in the process for six months. 

Mr. William Lazar, President of Super Shuttle, said that his company 
is concerned about the language being proposed and those concerns 
have been discussed by his legal counsel and Mr. Garibaldi. He said 
he would like to continue to work with staff to suggest some language 
changes regarding the moratorium and thought that that process might 
take another two weeks. He said that his legal counsel proposed to 
Mr. Garibaldi that the word "pending" be dropped and that the wording 
be amended to read "new passenger stage certificates" rather than 
"new and pending applications". 

Mr. Turpen told Mr. Lazar that the resolution says "new". 

Commissioner Fleishell said that an Airport permit authorizes an 
operator to do business at the Airport. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that that is 
the intent of the permit. It is Airport's permission to the operator 
to operate on the Airport. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked why the Airport was asking the PUC for a 
mori tori urn when the Airport already had the authority to deny 
permission to operate on the Airport. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that once an operator has a PUC certificate 
it is very difficult to deny them access to operate. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the Airport has ever tried to deny 
anyone. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that he did not think so. 

Mr. Fein explained that the problem is that an operator goes through 
a hearing period with the PUC that may last up to nine months and may 
cost anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000, depending on how much comment 
there is. At that point it would be unfair to deny an operator a 
permit after he has spent all of that time and money. He said that 
this moratorium will give operators that warning. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that if the word "pending" has been 
removed then there should be no further objection. 

Mr. Lazar said that the resolution states "new licenses" and he 
suggested replacing that language with "new passenger stage 
certificates" . 

Ms. Gittens did not understand the difference. 

Mr. Lazar said that the PUC could interpret it differently. He 
explained that a new passenger stage certificate would be given to a 
new operator applying for permission to operate to the Airport, 
whereas current operators wanting to expand their operations may come 
under the classification of licenses. 

Mr. Turpen said that tie e>pandi"g service would not include the 
Ai rport . 

Mr. Lazar responded that it could be other areas that would include 
service to the Airport, such as the Peninsula. 



Minutes, Ap i 1 19, 1988, Page 6 



Mr. Garibaldi said that "certificate" would be more appropriate 
language. 

Mr. Ken Brooks, Deputy City Manager for the City of San Mateo, said 
that the San Mateo and the Peninsula are interested in transportation 
to and from the Airport for Peninsula residents. He said that his 
office sent a letter to Mayor Agnos requesting that Peninsula cab 
services be included on the Airport. He said that if this resolution 
precludes or excludes Peninsula Cab services he would be interested. 

Mr. Turpen said that cab service is not part of this issue. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that this only respondes to half of the 
problem. The concern is the number of vehicles on the Airport. In 
addition to the moratorium, we should be putting a cap on the number 
of vehicles existing permittees can bring on the Airport. Otherwise, 
new entrants will be stopped but a current operator could add 100% 
more vehicles. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff will discuss this with Mr. Harvey, whose 
report is forthcoming. He said he felt the idea was a good one and 
while there are a number of ways to achieve it the Airport has been 
in a holding pattern while it waits for Mr. Harvey's report. It was 
the Commission's view that until the report was published staff 
should not take any action regarding ground transportation. He said 
that there are a number of items pending, i.e. shuttle bus, bidding a 
van service, etc. 



South San Francisco and Mill brae Home Insulation Funding - FY88-89 - 
$266,300.00 

No. 88-0066 Resolution authorizing the expenditure 

of funds by the Director for home 
insulation of approximately 90 
residences in Mill brae and South San 
Francisco. Expenditure of approxi- 
mately $266,300.00 is limited to the 
fol lowing: 

a. 20% of the building insulation 
costs for each unit; 

b. Subject to the granting of a 
Noise Easement to the City and 
County of San Francisco for each 
unit insulated 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Rejection of All Bids and Authorization for Re-bid: Contract 1912 
Tunnel "B" Waterproofing | Finishes, South Terminal 

No. 88-0067 Human Rights Commission has declared 

all bids to be non-responsive to MBE 
program requirements. 



M'nutes, Ap- il 19, '988, Page 7 



Declaration of Emergency: 
Airport Contract No. 2052 
Emergency Electrical Cable Replacement Cable 1 2AM- 1 

Nater Quality Control Plant Section 



No. 88-0068 



Resolution ratifying the action of the 
President of the Commission in 
declaring an emergency in electrical 
cable failure at North Field area 
serving Water Quality Control Plant, 
S.F. City College, and Chevron; and 
directing the Director of Airports to 
effect the necessary repairs. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no new business 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:21 AM to go into closed session. 

n Caramatti 
mission Secretary 



Minutes, Ap: 11 19, 1988, Page 8 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS Dc.7 7 
J UN 7 1933 

SAN FRANCISCO 



MINUTES 



MAY 3, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

May 3, 1988 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

B. ROLL CALL: 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

April 19, 1988 88-0070 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. $108,000 Supplemental Appropria- 
tion for the Free Luggage Cart 

Program in Customs 88-0071 4-5 

2. Selection of a Feasibility 

Consultant 88-0072 5-6 

3. Selection of Bond Counsel 88-0073 5-6 

4. Award of Contract No. 15596: 
Taxiway 'A' at Boarding Area 

'B' - Repair and Overlay 6 

5. Bid Call : Contract No. 2046: 
Runway 28R & 28L - Pavement 

Grooving and Repair 6 

6. Resolution Acknowledging the 
Merger of Canadian Pacific Air 
Li nes , Ltd. into Canadian 

Airlines International, Ltd. 88-0074 6 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

7. Approval of Claims Settlements 88-0075 6 

8. Travel /Training for Airport 

Representatives 88-0076 6 



NEW BUSINESS: 

Ground Transportation Study 7 

Master Plan 7 

CORRESPONDENCE: 7 



ADJOURNEMNT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes, May 3. 1983, Page 2 



Mi nutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

May 3, 1988 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:06 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 



Absent: 



J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of April 19, 
of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0070 



were adopted by order 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0069 authorizing and approving 
modification no. 5 to agreement with 
Morrison & Foerster at the closed 
session of April 19, 1988. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes , Ma y 3. 1988, Page 3 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item no. 1 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

1 . $108,000 Supplemental Appropriation for the Free Luggage Cart Program 
in Customs 

No. 88-0071 Resolution authorizing a $108,000 

supplemental appropriation to fund the 
free luggage cart program in Customs 
through the end of the current fiscal 
year. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that use of 
free luggage carts in Customs is up over projections, necessitating 
this request for a supplemental appropriation. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she had a problem with this in the 
face of the City's budget crisis. She asked how long it would take 
to go from a free cart system to a pay cart system. 

Mr. Turpen responded that since the dispensers are in place, the 
changeover could be made within a week. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about the status of the State law. 

Mr. Peter Nardoza, Assistant Deputy Director, Business and Finance, 
responded that the bill is dead. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Mayor's Office should be alerted to 
the implications of a free cart system in view of the budget crisis. 
He said that the Commission reversed its original decision not to 
provide free carts in customs at the request of certain parties. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the Commission reversed its 
decision at the request of the Mayor and no one else. 

Commissioner Goosby said that in view of the budget crunch he would 
be in favor of raising this issue again if staff first contacts the 
Mayor's representative. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff has submitted the subject of free luggage 
carts to the Mayor via two avenues. The first was contained in a 
response to the Mayor's request for revenue proposals. The other was 
in response to a specific request from the Mayor's Office which came 
as a result of a letter they had received from Smarte Carte in which 
a return to a pay cart system was suggested. He said that staff 
provided the necessary information to the Mayor's Office and a 
response from that office is expected shortly. 

Mr. Turpen asked that the Commission approve this item conditionally 
so that staff can proceed with the paperwork. In the event the free 
cart program remains in effect, failure to proceed with the paperwork 
at this time would place the Airport in a time crunch. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that although she was not happy with 
this, she would vote for conditional approval for staff to proceed 
with the paperwork only and t^en return to the Commission in two 
weeks. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Comm'ssioner Tsougarakis. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she wanted it clearly understood 
that she would not have voted for free carts on the basis of anyone 
else's request but the Mayor's. 

Minutes. Ma., 3, 1988, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen said that he would take this matter up with the Mayor's 
representati /e after the meeting. The matter will reappear on 
cal endar i n two weeks . 



Items 2 and 3 were called together. Item no. 2 was unanimously adopted as 
amended. 

2. Selection of a Feasibility Consultant 

No. 88-0072 Resolution authorizing Airport staff 

to request proposals from firms to 
serve as feasibility consultant for 
work related to Airport bond issues. 



Selection of Bond Counsel 

No. 88-0073 Resolution authorizing Airport staff 

to request proposals from firms to 
service as Airport Bond Counsel. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Airport's bond counsel is 
Orrick Herrington, and the feasibility consultant is John Brown. He 
said that the City Attorney has advised him that the Airport is 
obligated to request proposals for selection of a bond counsel but 
not a feasibility consultant. Since Salomon Brothers is no longer in 
the financial end of the business the Airport must seek a new 
financial consultant. 

Mr. Turpen said that since the Airport is obligated to request RFP's 
for a bond counsel he recommended that the Commission approve agenda 
item no. 3, Selection of Bond Counsel. He also asked the Commission 
to continue John Brown's contract rather than send out a request for 
proposals. He explained that when this particular item was prepared 
it had not yet been determined whether or not RFP's must be 
requested. He told the Commission that he would like at least one 
member of that team to continue. 

Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Brown has been the Airport's feasibility 
consultant for many years and it would be in the best interest of 
both the Airport and the Commission to retain him. He said that Mr. 
Brown has done an excellent job and retaining him would provide some 
continuity to the team. He added that very few companies do this 
type of work. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the size of the firm. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the firm consists of three people. 

Commissioner TsougaraMs said she was willing to go along with Mr. 
Turpen's recommendations. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the Human Rights Commission would do 
about affirmative action. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that RFP's are not being requested 
for the feasibility consultant. 

Mr. Turpen explained that when this first came up he was concerned 
about losing all three and asked which of them could be retained. He 
said that he asked staff to prepare these items in anticipation of 



Minutes, vay 3, 1988. Page 5 



the possibility that none of the current contracts could be extended 
He said that since that time the Airports General Counsel has 
indicated that the Commission could extend Mr. Brown's contract but 
RFP's must be requested for a bond counsel. 



Item nos . 4 and 5 were put over. 

4. Award of Contract No. 1559B 

Taxi way 'A' at Boarding Area 'B' - Repair and Overlay 



5. Bid Call : Contract No. 2046 

Runway 28R & 28L - pavement Grooving and Repair 



Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for contract No. 2046 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



Item No. 6 was unanimously adopted. 

6. Resolution Acknowledging the Merger of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, 
Ltd. into Canadian Airlines International, Ltd. 

No. 88-0074 Resolution acknowledges the acquisi- 

tion of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, 
Ltd. by Pacific Western Airlines, Ltd 
by act of law to form Canadian 
Air'ines International Ltd. with 
assignment of rights and interests 
from Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Ltd. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

7. Approval of Claims Settlement 

No. 88-0075 Resolution approving the settlement of 

claims not exceeding $5,000.00 for the 
period October, 1987 to March, 1988. 

Total Claims: $3,563.65 



Travel /Trai ni nq for Airport Representatives 
No. 88-0076 



Minutes, Ma.v 3, 1988, Page 6 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

Commissioner Goosby asked that the Commission be briefed on the ground 
transportation report at the ne*t meeting. He felt the Commission will 
need more than one session on that issue. 

Commissioner Goosby also asked for a briefing on the status of the Master 
Plan and felt it might be helpful to the Commission to meet with the cargo 
carriers in order to get their input. 

Commissioner Goosby said he was not looking for a final report on the 
transportation study, just a preliminary report on the problems and issues. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:18 AM. 




m uaramatti 
nmission Secretary 



Minutes, May 3, 1988, Page 7 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

SAN FRANCISCO 



MAY 17, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEfM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

May 17, 1988 



CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
May 3, 1988 



88-0077 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Status of Ground Transporta- 
tion Consultant's Report 

Status of Master Plan 

Budget Update 



3-5 

5 

5-6 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Phone System 






ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

4. Resolution Regarding Luggage 
Carts in Customs 

5. Award of Lease: Entertainment 
Center /Video Game Room 

6. Award of Contract No. 1559B: 
Taxiway 'A' at Boarding Area 'B' 
- Repair and Overlay 

7. U.S. Postal Service's Plot 10B - 
Lease Renewal Option 

8. Authorization to Accept Bids 
for the Hair Salon Lease 



- 


6-7 


88-0078 


7 


88-0079 


7-8 


88-0080 


8 


88-0081 


8 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTNINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Award of Contract No. 1912: 
Tunnel 'B' Waterproofing & 
Finishes - Echo-West, Inc. - 
Amount: $139,491 88-0082 

10. Type II Modification to 
Contract 1416C - Delta Airlines 
Facilities, South Terminal and 
Boarding Area 'C - No Cost to 

City 88-0083 

11 . Bid Call: Contract No. 2046: 
Runway 28R & 28L - Pavement 

Grooving and Repair 88-0084 

12. Design Review Approval - 
Insurance/Business Service 

Center 88-0085 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 






ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

May 17, 1988 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Absent: Don Richards Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 3, 1988 were adopted by order of 
the Commission President. 

No. 88-0077 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Status of Ground Transportation Consultant's Report 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, introduced Mr. Greig Harvey, the 
Airport's consultant on ground transportation, and asked him to brief 
the Commission on the status of his ground transportation report. 

Mr. Harvey told the Commission that they should have received his 
four page executive summary which covers the main points of his 
ground transportation report. He said that that document would be in 
their hands by May 31 . 

Mr. Harvey said he would be available to talk to individual 
Commissioners or the Commission as a group about specific questions. 
He said that although he tried to sort out the most important issues, 
there were literally hundreds of questions raised in interviews and 
he was only able to deal with a relatively small number of them. 



Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 3 



Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she would prefer to defer 
discussion on this issue until such time when the Commission receives 
the final report. Once the Commission receives that report they will 
accept recommendations over the next two or three months. Staff can 
then call meetings with interested parties and then present their 
findings to the Commission for a public hearing and policy decisions. 

Mr. Turpen asked the Commission if there would be any advantage to 
scheduling informational briefings after May 31. 

Commissioner Goosby thought such meetings would be helpful. 

Mr. Turpen said that a series of meetings could be set up during the 
first two weeks in June and later calendared for Commission 
di scussion. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the final report addressed West of 
Bayshore impact. 

Mr. Harvey responded that although he did speak with staff about the 
West of Bayshore and how it might fit into the overall flow of ground 
access activity at the Airport, another consultant was handling the 
master plan so he tried to focus on relatively short term issues. He 
said that he could address that issue during individual conversations 
with the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen added that there was a recent article on the West of 
Bayshore property which characterized staff as being against an 
on-Airport mass transit connection. He explained that although people 
talk about BART specifically, he is referring to a generic on-Airport 
connection. He said that the Commission's official position, adopted 
in 1982, is that some mass transit rail option to the Airport is 
favored. He added that the Commission reserved any comment as to a 
specific on-Airport location pending the outcome of the master plan 
and additional studies into the area. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that the Commission planned an Airport 
access for BART via the garage 20 years ago. 

Mr. Harvey said that it would be to the Airport's advantage to have 
BART come in close to the West of Bayshore facility but that it 
should not be a major transfer facility for passengers commuting from 
San Mateo to the City. 

Mr. Turpen said that there is a view that the West of Bayshore is the 
best alternative for an interface between BART or some other rail 
system. There is an alternate view that the Airport terminal complex 
itself would be an excellent terminus. He said that while those 
views persist there has been no resolution nor has staff gotten into 
any detailed studies, perferring to wait until an alternative has 
been selected. 

Mr. Turpen said that individual meetings with the Commission will be 
scheduled. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that a press conference be held when 
Mr. Harvey's final report is released. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he would prefer to schedule a press 
conference after meeting with the Commission. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that there are certain areas that he had 
hoped Mr. Harvey would cover, i.e. San Mateo taxi entry into the 
Airport and rental car trips. He remembered that there had been a 



Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 4 



suggestion to move the rental cars into the garage. Commissioner 
Fleishell also suggested that staff investigate reports that existing 
rules are not being enforced. 

Mr. Harvey responded that the long version of the report deals with 
the San Mateo taxis. He said that he has worked with San Mateo, the 
City and the Airport to try to determine the possibilities. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested that Mr. Harvey address the cab 
companies criticisms of the present dispatch system and its location. 



2. Status of Master Plan 

Mr. Turpen said that at its last meeting the Commission asked for a 
brief update on the master plan. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
said that since the last status report staff has been working with 
the Department of Fish and Game on the garter snake issue on the West 
of Bayshore. A procedure has finally been agreed upon so that a 
study can proceed. 

Mr. Yuen said that Working Paper 'B' will be presented to the 
Commission at the first meeting in June and will address the east 
side of the freeway but not the West of Bayshore property. He said 
that staff will continue to work on that issue and he hoped that 
after the master plan is adopted it will be updated to include the 
West of Bayshore property. 

Mr. Yuen said that Fish and Game was anxious to develop that plan as 
kids were riding their bikes on that property and killing the 
environment for the snakes. 

Commissioner Goosby asked which phase would address the cargo areas. 

Mr. Yuen responded that Working Paper 'B' will address that issue. 



Budget Update 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, told the 
Commission that although staff was not quite as far along as she had 
hoped they would be, the Mayor's Office has given a preliminary 
decision that they will require the Airport to expand concession 
revenue by approximately $7-mi 1 1 ion , creating an additional 
$1 -mi 1 1 i on in revenue for the City. She said that staff will present 
a series of proposals at the next meeting which will include an 
increase in parking and ground transportation fees. She added that 
at this point the Mayor's Office does not want the free cart program 
in customs discontinued. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much money would be transferred to the 
City. 

Ms. Gittens responded that $10. 5-mi 1 1 ion would be sent. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that in spite of the amount of money 
being transferred into the General Fund the Airport is projecting a 
reduction in landing fees and rental rates for next year. He said 
that no one ever recognizes the Commission or staff for its efforts 
and felt that the airlines should write a letter of commendation to 
the Airport. 

Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 5 



Ms. Gittens said that staff will be meeting with the airlines on 
Thursday on the rates and charges and she will forward his request to 
them. 

Mr. Turpen said that when the agreement was worked out in 1981 the 
airlines were contributing about 520 on the dollar to the Airport's 
operation; they are now contributing 330 on the dollar. 



Mr. Turpen told the Commission that progressive occupancy of Boarding 
Area 'C will begin at midnight on June 7. There will be a 
dedication ceremony on June 16 which will not only earmark the 
opening of Boarding Area 'C but the conclusion of the terminal 
modernization program, a 25 year, $600-mi 1 1 i on venture. 



Mr. Turpen commented that staff and members of the Commission have 
been working with Host International on the proposal to provide 
minority opportunities and price controls in concessions. He said 
that in working with the Mayor's Office, the Commission and staff, a 
request was made of Host to look at excel lerating the phase-in 
schedule from the original 1994 date. He said that Host has advised 
him that he will receive a revised phase-in schedule any day and he 
will forward that schedule to the Commission. He said that the next 
step would be to discuss that schedule with Host. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked when Host would have its proposal ready. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it should be ready this week and the 
Commission should receive it by Thursday. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fl e i she 1 1 mentioned the fire in Chicago last week that 
knocked out the switching mechanism for the phone systems and shut down 
O'Hare Airport as they had no back-up system. He asked Mr. Turpen to talk 
with the FAA to see if the same situation exists at SFO. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Airport has a redundant system which ties 
into the tower. This system is designed to provide a four-digit internal 
system, totally independent and physically separated from the primary 
system, in the event the primary system goes out. He said that he would 
check the extent of its capabilities. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

No action was taken on item no. 4. 

4. Resolution Regarding Luggage Carts in Customs 

Resolution reflecting the Mayor's 
views on luggage carts in Customs. 

Commissioner Goosby said that if the Mayor decides to continue the 
program the proper vote should be against it. 

Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen said that no action would be necessary on this item. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked when the existing contract expires. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the contract expires in 1990. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that when the Commission first began 
discussing installing a free cart operation a year ago staff was to 
immediately begin hunting for alternative suppliers. He asked about 
the status of that search. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the supplier is not the problem, rather it 
is joining the supplier to an operator to run the program. He said 
that that was the problem staff had the last time around. 



Item no. 5 was unanimously adopted. 

5. Award of Lease: Entertainment Center/Video Game Room 

No. 88-0078 Resolution awarding the Lease of 

Entertainment Center/Video Game Room 
in the North Termina Building to 
S.H.A., Inc. 



Item no. 6 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

6. Award of Contract No. 1559B : 

Taxiway 'A' at Boarding Area 'B', Repair and Overlay 

No. 88-0079 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director, Facilities Operations and 
Maintenance, recommended award to 0'Grady Paving. He said that Bay 
Cities Paving protested the qualifications of 0'Grady Paving, the low 
bidder, to HRC. The HRC staff ruled against Bay Cities, saying that 
their supplier was, in fact, not a supplier and that they therefore 
did not meet the MBE goals. Bay Cities appealed the decision to HRC 
yesterday and HRC upheld the staff recommendation. 

Mr. Turpen recommended the award go to 0'Grady Paving. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if there was an appellate period 
following the decision by the HRC. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that that is 

what occurred yesterday. HRC staff made the initial determination 

which was appealed to the HRC Director. The HRC Director upheld the 

staff recommendation. Beyond that avenue is the court. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the award of this contract should be 
delayed in the event Bay Cities goes to court. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that the contract must be processed in the 
interim as there is a time problem. If a suit is filed, the process 
can be stopped. 

Mr. Bouey added that this question has arisen about three times and 
in each case the contract was awarded based on the Airport's 
procedures. If a lawsuit is filed the Airport would make its 
argument and then abide by the decision. He argued that not to 

Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 7 



proceed on the basis that a lawsauit may or may not be filed may 
cause the Airport to lose its window, which is fairly short in this 
type of construction. 



U.S Postal Service's Plot 10B Lease Renewal Option 

No. 88-0080 Resolution approving the renewal 

option of Lease No. PUC 24392 for the 
U.S. Postal Service's Plot 10B, at an 
annual land rate of $18,500 per acre, 
per year. 



Authorization to Accept Bids for the Hair Salon Lease 

No. 88-0081 Resolution approving lease specifica- 

tions and authorizing Director to 
accept bids for the Hair Salon Lease. 



Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Mike Arandareff if he wished to address 
the Commission. 

Mr. Arendareff introduced himself and told the Commission that he is a 
member of the San Francisco Airport Committee which represents the 
residents of San Francisco. He said that his Committee feels that their 
interests have not been represented in terms of the overflight noise 
problem. The Committee would like to be kept up to date on the Airport's 
activities, in particular how the overflight noise problem relates to the 
master plan. 

Commissioner Goosby told Mr. Arendareff that his Committee could be placed 
on the mai 1 ing list. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Award of Contract No. 1912 : 

Tunnel 'B' Waterproofing & Finishes 
Echo-West, Inc. - Amount: $139,491 

No. 88-0082 Commission rejected all bids on April 

19th due to failure of bidders to meet 
Human Rights Commission requirements. 
Contract was re-bid on May 4, 1988. 
Human Rights Commission has approved 
award of contract to Echo-West. 



Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 8 



10. Type II Modification to Contract 1416C : 

Delta Airlines Facilities, South Terminal and Boarding Area 'C 
- No Cost to City 



No. 88-0083 



Changes requested by Delta for its 
baggage system, Agent's Room, and 
operations ramp. Total cost of 
$67,638.19 will be paid by Delta. 



11 . Bid Call : Contract No. 2046 : 

Runway 28R & 28L, Pavement Grooving and Repair 



No. 88-0084 



Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for Contract No. 2046 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



12. Design Review Approval - Insurance/Business Service Center 



No. 88-0085 



Resolution approving the schematic 
design of the Insurance/Business 
Service Center. 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

No new business was presented to the Commission, 



* * * 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



* * * 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:28 AM to go into closed session. 



lean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, May 17, 1988, Page 9 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUL 3 7 1983 

SAN f-KANCitsCO 
PUBLIC UBRAQV 



JUNE 7, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

Presldtnt 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

VlctPrtsldtnt 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 
Airports Commission 

June 7, 1988 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 



B. 
C. 

D. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 

CALL TO ORDER: 

ROLL CALL: 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 
Revenue Proposals 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
BART 

Overf 1 ights 
Travel /Training: Ron Wilson 



88-0098 



4-5 
5 
5 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Resolution Approving a Partial 
Sublease of the Boarding Area 
'E' Retail Concession Lease 



88-0087 



Resolution Approving the Assign- 
ment of the International 
Terminal Poster Shop Sublease 88-0088 



Resolution Approving Pre-Bid 
Conference for In-Bond 
Concession Agreement 



88-0089 



G. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Resolution of Appreciation - 
Jerome A. Cope Ian 



88-0090 



Resolution Approving Assignment 

Agreement's - Alaska Airlines and 

Delta Air Lines 88-0091 

Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid 

Conference for South Terminal 

Cigarette Vending Lease 88-0092 

Resolution Settling Construction 
Claims 



9. Bid Call: Contract No. 2043: 

Removal and Disposal of Material 

Adjacent to Taxiway 'L' 88-0093 8 

10. Bid Call : Contract No. 1999: 
Terminal Approach Roadway - Pave- 
ment and Repairs 88-0094 8 

11. $85,000 Contract with the 
Corporation of Fine Arts Museums, 

San Francisco 88-0095 8 

12. Contract for Holiday Decor, San 

Francisco International Airport 88-0096 8 

13. Declaration of Emergency: 
Contract No. 2056 - Emergency 

Transformer Repair 88-0097 8 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

14. Fiscal Year 1988-89 Rates and 
Charges 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Mobile Catering Truck Operators 9-11 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 11 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



Minutes. June 7, 1988. Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 7, 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:02 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z. L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0086 at the closed session of May 
17, 1988. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Revenue Proposals 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director reminded the Commission that staff 
has been looking towards revenue generation in the non-airline area. 
As a result, a series of proposals have been put together for review 
both by the Commission and the Mayor's Office. Responses to those 
proposals have been received from the Mayor's Office and they have 
agreed to selected proposals being implemented. Those proposals will 
be brought to the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Mayor wished to have a second 
opportunity to look at specific proposals once they have been made. 

Mr. Turpen responded that some of these proposals will involve going 
through the City's approval process which includes the Mayor's Office 



Minutes, June 7, 1988. Page 3 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Airport has been asked for its input on 
the location of the BART terminal, i.e. why the center of the garage is 
not being used, running the tracks on the West of Bayshore, and the impact 
on congestion versus the cost. He said that the master plan envisioned 
the garage as a viable alternative but the idea has been abandoned. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Airport received a letter from an 
architect/planner which raised some serious questions and suggested that 
the Commission has been remiss in not being more knowledgeable about the 
proposal and in not offering input. He said that Chicago, New York, 
Boston and London have rapid transit systems to their airports and asked 
how successful they were in the eyes of the public and those airports. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Commission has not even discussed these 
questions and did not feel that a momentous decision such as this should 
be made without comment from the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen responded that to his knowledge the Airport has received no 
official request for input into the process. He said that there have been 
informal conversations and questions as to the Commission's position. He 
said that the Commission's prior position was for a mass transit/BART 
alternative to the Airport, reserving the right to comment on the specific 
physical interface until such time as the proposal became more concrete. 
He reminded the Commission that this position was adopted in 1982 and 
until this recent activity it was a very sound endorsement. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if a decision on the location of the station was 
close to being made. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport owns the West of Bayshore property 
as well as the terminals and it would be within the purview of the 
Airports Commission to make those decisions. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that the BART board would benefit from the 
Commission's input. 

Mr. Turpen said that there are two views as to locations. One is to have 
BART come into the Airport, the other is to have BART access the West of 
Bayshore where it could tie into some other alternative mode of transpor- 
tation. He said that both views have their merits and demerits. Staff 
could examine the alternatives for operational and physical impact if the 
Commission wished. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if any subterranian preparations have been made, 
other than the hole in the garage. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Building and Construction, 
responded that there is a right of way for a future BART trace. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that when he met with Mr. Yuen last week on 
the master plan he raised the same issue. He felt that the Airport should 
contact BART, rather than wait for BART to contact the Airport. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that it might not be feasible to put this 

system underground because of the land fill. He thought that it would be 

very costly, as would the connprtor from the West of Bayshore to the 
terminal . 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she too met with Mr. Yuen last week and 
it seemed to her that the master plan itself is a statement from the 
Commission. She said that she also felt that the core of the garage needs 
to be addressed in the master plan. 

Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen felt it would be appropriate to return at the next meeting and 
bring the Commission up to speed as well as come to agreement on some of 
the physical/operational considerations and transmit them to the BART 
board. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the BART board be queried as to whether 
or not they are interested in the Commission's positions on the various 
proposals. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff will prepare a summary of the issues and then 
move forward to the appropriate agency. 



Commissioner Goosby said that he attended a meeting last evening at the 
invitation of the San Francisco Organizing Project, a group of church/ 
community organizations in the City with broad connections in the South 
San Francisco/southern part of the City. He said that 35-40 people 
attended the meeting to discuss the issue of overflights and he promised 
the group that he would bring their concerns to staff's attention. He 
asked if Ron Wilson could schedule a meeting with this group and invite 
the Airport's noise specialists and representatives of the FAA. He added 
that many of the attendees were unaware of how often the Airport is sued 
over noise. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Supervisor's Committee is beginning to 
look into this issue as well as the Mayor and felt that it would benefit 
the Airport to develop a liaison with the Mayor's Office. He said that if 
Mr. Ho is that liaison it should be determined whether or not background 
should be presented and a procedure developed through which the question 
of noise can be addressed with both San Francisco and San Mateo residents. 
He said that the procedure might determine whether or not flight paths 
could be impacted through the FAA. He said that there might be a 
constitutional question involved that would prevent interference but he 
felt that there might be some relief for local communities at the federal 
level. He felt that all avenues should be explored, including the 
legislative process. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the group asked how long the five new 
monitors mentioned in the newspaper would be in place, whether any of 
those monitors would be positioned in the southern part of the City, 
especially in the McLaren Park/Woodrow Wilson High School area, and, who 
would monitor them. He said that the group had other questions but he 
would discuss them with staff after the meeting. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that the Mayor would be pleased with such an 
approach through his office and that the Board of Supervisor's Committee 
will see that the Airport wants to work cooperatively with them as well. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that there would also be opponents to the master 
plan and the bond issues. 

Commissioner Goosby thought it might be a good idea for Mr. Ho to attend 
the meeting with the community. 



Commissioner Bernstein introduced a ravel /training request for Ron 
Wilson, Director of Community Affairs, to attend the Citizens Conference 
on Airport/Aircraft Noise in Seattle, Washington - June 10-11, 1988. 

The resolution was unanimously adopted. 

No. 88-0098 

Minutes, June 7, 1988. Page 5 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Resolution Approving a Partial Sublease of the Boarding Area 'E' 
Retail Concession Lease 

No. 88-0087 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this item approves a sublease of 
space from Duty Free Shoppers, the successful concessionaire in 
Boarding Area 'E', to Kass Management Services, an HRC certified 
minority business. He said that he was pleased that the sublease 
involves this minority business, particularly in light of the 
difficulties the Commission experienced in trying to promote its 
standard principal concession concept. He commended all those 
involved in this effort. 



Resolution Approving the Assignment of the International Terminal 
Poster Shop Sublease 

No. 88-0088 Resolution approving the assignment of 

the International Terminal, the Poster 
Shop sublease from Concourse Gallery, 
Inc. to Aerogifts Center, a partner- 
ship. 



4. Resolution Approving Pre-Bid Conference for In-Bond Concession 
Agreement 

No. 88-0089 Resolution authorizing the Director to 

hold a pre-bid conference for the 
pre-bid of the In-Bond Concession. 

Mr. Turpen explained that Duty Free's agreement terminates in 
approximately one year. He felt that it would be prudent to hold a 
pre-bid conference at this time to reach out to potential bidders and 
advise them of this opportunity well in advance of the effective date 
and sol icit their views. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if there had been a problem between 
Customs and Duty Free's off-Airport facility. He thought that Duty 
Free was trying to get the Federal law amended. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, responded 
that that effort is still in the works. She said that there is no 
requirement for a bonded warehouse downtown but that this facility 
will be required under this agreement so that orders can be taken. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 5 through 7 and 9 through 13 were unanimously adopted. Item No. 
was removed from the calendar. 



Minutes. June 7, 1988, Page 6 



5. Resolution of Appreciation - Jerome A. Copelan 

No. 88-0090 

Commissioner Goosby asked where Mr. Copelan would be assigned. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Mr. Copelan will be head property manager 
of the Americas for Qantas. Their office is located in downtown San 
Francisco and his sites will be Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco, 
Los Angeles, Honolulu, Chicago and New York. If Qantas goes back 
into Mexico or South America he will be responsible for those areas 
as wel 1 . 

Commissioner Goosby asked what Mr. Copelan 1 s title was and if he 
would be replaced. 

Ms. Gittens responded that his title was Head Property Manager and 
she said that he would be replaced. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if that was a Civil Service position. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it is currently a Civil Service position 
however there is a possibility that a request will be made to change 
it to an exampt position. She said that if it remains a permanent 
Civil Service position she would not try to fill it temporarily, but 
would wait until an exam could be held. 

Commissioner Goosby asked when she would know whether or not it would 
remain permanent. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it will be up to the Commission to decide 
when it is presented to them in two weeks. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the City Charter gives the Commission the 
authority to create an exempt position. If the exempt position is 
created, the Commission must ratify any appointment or discharge from 
that position. He said that there are presently a handfull of Civil 
Service exempt positions at the Airport. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many people were on Mr. Copelan's staff. 

Ms. Gittens responded that there are a total of five employees in the 
department; Mr. Copelan, another individual at the next level who is 
in charge of the retail concessions, and three others who are on a 
par with one another. 



6. Resolution Approving Assignment Agreement's - Alaska Airlines and 
Del ta Air Lines 

No. 88-0091 Resolution approving the mutual 

assignment of space on Boarding Area 
'B' of the South Terminal Building 
between Alaska Airlines and Delta Air 

Lines. 



Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference for South Terminal 
Cigarette Vending Lease 

No. 88-0092 



Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 7 



8. Resolution Settling Construction Claims 



Resolutiors settling construction 
claims between Pan American World 
Airways and the Airport. 



Bid Call : Contract No. 2043 

Removal and Disposal of Material Adjacent to Taxiway 'L' 

No. 88-0093 Proposed resolution approving the 

scope, budget, and call for bids for 
Airport Contract No. 2043. 



10. Bid Call : Contract No. 1999 
Terminal Approach Roadway 
Pavement Widening and Repairs 

No. 88-0094 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1999 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



1 1 . $85,000 Contract with the Corporation of Fine Arts Museums, San 
Francisco 



No. 88-0095 



Contract for $85,000 with the Corpora- 
tion of Fine Arts Museums, San 
Francisco (COFAM) for the purpose of 
providing and implementing temporary 
exhibitions at San Francisco Interna- 
tional Airport for the fiscal year 
1988/89. 



12. Contract for Holiday Decor, San Francisco International Airport 

No. 88-0096 Contract for holiday decor for holiday 

season, December 1988. 



1 3 . Declaration of Emergency : 
Contract No. 2056 
Emergency Transformer Repair 

No. 88-0097 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring an emergency because of an 
electrical transformer failure at West 
end of the parking garage and 
directing the Director of Airports to 
effect the >cessary repairs. 



Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 8 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was called to order at 9:32 AM and adjourned at 9:33 
AM, there being no requests from tha public to speak. 

14. Fiscal Year 1988-89 Rates and Charges 

Hearing concerning the establishment 
of ( 1 ) terminal rental rates and (2) 
commercial and general aviation 
landing fee rates for Fiscal Year 
1988/89 and beyond. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airline Affairs Committee has reviewed the 
rates and charges and staff will return to the Commission for 
approval at the next meeting. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Mr. John Stevens, Kitchen on Wheels, asked the Commission why the mobile 
catering truck operators were losing their permits and their business. He 
said that four operators have been working on permits at Cargo 7 for six 
or seven years and that a couple of months ago they received letters 
informing them that their permits were being cancelled and would have to 
leave the area. 

Mr. Stevens said that they have had two unsuccessful meetings with the 
Airport. At the first meeting they were asked to approach the airlines 
for space. The operators were asked the results of their efforts with the 
airlines at the second meeting. He complained that they lost two half 
days with these meetings. 

Mr. Stevens said that after the second meeting they visited their new 
location to determine how many companies would be working there. He said 
that United, the largest employer, does not want them. Delta has its own 
truck but the operators were told that there is an area with 15 employees 
and they would be allowed on the property for a few minutes at a time. 
Mr. Stevens said that American has 80 to 100 employees and United has 
about 40 employees in their cargo areas where they would be allowed to 
operate. Hertz has had a truck for 17 years and does not want another. 
Budget only has 15 employees. He said that the operators feel that half 
of the 200 - 300 employees located in this area will bring a sandwich from 
home, reducing the market to abcut 150 employees. 

Mr. Stevens said that there are about six illegal trucks working at the 
Airport and nothing has been done to remove them from the area. He 
complained that these illegal operators pay no rent and no insurance. 

Mr. Stevens said that the Airport is sending staff to the sites for about 
an hour to watch the operation and take photographs. He explained that if 
a truck stops it does not necessarily mean that the driver is there is buy 
food. The driver could be making a delivery or asking directions. 

Mr. Stevens said that the Airport is claiming that the trucks are blocking 
the roadway and creating a hazard. He said that ho works at Butler 
Aviation and there is no traffic in that area. He arks his truck closest 
to the street... 35 feet from one side of the street and 45 feet from the 
other side. Mr. Stevens said that the operators have talked with the 
Airport Police and they have been told that they are not blocking traffic. 

Mr. Stevens told the Commission that they have tried to work with the 
Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 9 



Airport staff. There are four families working in that area and they are 
being put out of business. He claimed that the Airport is going to give 
that area to the highest bidder after they have spent years developing 
their businesses. He said that any money the Airport receives comes from 
the good will he has developed. He said that the good will that he has 
developed over the past eight years is his and belongs to no one else. 

Mr. Stevens told the Commission that across from the area in which he 
works is an empty strip of land measuring about 20 feet wide by 650 feet 
long. In the past the catering truck operators have asked if they could 
use that area so they would be closer to the tenants, but were refused 
permission. He said that he worked at Cargo 7, which is leased property, 
for six years and about a year ago was asked to leave. He was told by 
Jerry Copelan of the Airport that the tenant did not want them on their 
property. 

Mr. Stevens said that if there is a problem with their current location 
they would like to know what it is. He said that he has been at the 
Airport for 11 years and his truck cost him $100,000. He pays $1,000 in 
rent, utilities, $2,000 a month in insurance, $100 to the Airport and 
$1 -mi 1 1 i on in insurance. He said that it costs him $2,500 a month to 
operate so he is not working free. 

Mr. James Quiett told the Commission that he is a former Commissioner in 
Marin County and is representing the Jun Catering Truck Company. He asked 
the Commission if they have considered the damage this action will cause 
the catering truck companies. He requested that the Commission defer its 
decision so as to allow the operators more time to find additional 
accounts. He said that when the operators were contacted by the Airport 
they became frightened about their liability. He asked the Commission 
what it would mean to their own businesses to be cut off from one quarter 
or one third of their clients. He said that business would decline and 
eventually they would have to close their doors. 

Mr. Quiett said that 30 percent of San Francisco business must go to 
minorities and the Commission should work just as hard to keep them in 
business as they do to put them out of business. He was not suggesting 
that the Commission was trying to put them out of business but he felt 
that traffic congestion was not sufficient reason for this action. He 
said that the Commission was not considering the Airport employees. He 
added that Mr. Chang has been at the Airport for 24 years. 

Mr. Quiett said that the catering truck operators have received loans for 
their businesses on the premise that they have customers. They have 
relied on the Commission that they would come through for them and they, 
in turn, would come through for their customers. If the Commission lets 
them down, they will be letting down their customers. 

Mr. Quiett told the Commission that all that is needed in this situation 
is a little creative thinking from staff. He asked the Commission to 
either abandon this effort or defer it in order to give the operators 
enough time to encourage tenants to provide space. He also felt that the 
relationship between staff and the operators was very poor and mistrust 
has developed. He felt that steps should be taken to correct the 
situation. 

Mr. Quiett said that Jun's Catering was given a permit from JAL cargo to 
operate in their space in the evening when it is not k ~'ng used. It was 
turned over to Ei'een Si Ion of the Airport and they hav not yet heard 
from her. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that that issue does not belong at a 
Commission meeting and can be handled by staff. 



Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 10 



Ms. Linda Chan of Chan's Catering told the Commission that her company has 
been at the Airport for 20 years. She said that the Commission does not 
realize what it takes to operate a small business at the Airport and ">at 
some nights they make only $5.00 at a stop. She said that Jun's obey:, Die 
rules and does not feel that this new policy is necessary and will, in 
fact, hurt them. She asked the Commission to withdraw the policy. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she called the Commission Secretary and 
asked to have this issue calendared for this meeting but was given to 
understand that Airport staff had already scheduled a meeting with the 
operators for this coming Friday. She said that she agreed not to put it 
on the agenda until she knew the outcome of the meeting. She assured the 
catering truck operators that they have not been forgotten and the 
Commission is well aware of their concerns. 

Commissioner Goosby said that there was a meeting about a month ago. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that there have been a couple of meetings. 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that staff has had two sessions with the 
catering truck operators and there has been some progress. Staff has 
talked to various airlines and other tenants about taking on catering 
trucks. She agreed that more time is needed and action has been deferred. 
She said that nothing is scheduled to happen until July 15 and will most 
likely be deferred until a later date as the meeting with the caterers is 
not scheduled until later this week. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked for a report after the meeting with the 
operators. 

Ms. Gittens said that she will have a memo to the Commission by June 30 
but cannot commit to an item on the next calendar. 

Mr. Stevens said that the operators gathered 2,500 signatures to present 
to the Commission and asked to whom they should be presented. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that they be presented to the Commission 
Secretary. 

See attachment. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO IN TO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM. 



/an Caramatti 
amission Secretary 



Minutes, June 7, 1988, Page 11 



AZ- 



\& 




e>/^7 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and th? other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 






1 



OCCUPATION 



/T rfr^tp 



s?*~/° 



COMPANY 



r^wa A-w\ 




■^ 



V- 



, P/^-^uL^A-^^ 



#c*yyt/& 



S- 



y)Ai/x{ 



~^f,of/\gs 



22-Qa 



P 



&H/j4in 









\& i*s Z 1 ^ 







4mt± 



&L 



£fL 




^f 





£&£ 



f^ f 



&3£ i 



<\ f ' cwr 




%M 



^TFF 






H 



SESZ^S^s 



"^T^ 



T 



< pttAf SOBJ 







vjVCTQ^ 9 



PggTgg ffiSPtg 



fffr*. 



r^'oov Vffiss 



%ra^#^ 




v^ 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the; other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



To^u L+fTiJ 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



£** 



nn Kyp&t, 



V\/^ C ^Q<CCC' 



£>A^ 



U\U U.SftNMMdtMs. 






TaA 



it^ 



1 VW j 



7KK 



\c^S vV^mY 



uo_ 



f 



\umMo 




t&M 



^A 



KJOMrS Jt^ M 



fA4 



n 



Ebt. 






My m 



(JAMf> swC 



£L 



U& A ^ 



T> 



^ 



rz kl- a^-ff 



/tte 



f t 



•y* 



~ 7^ 



^J2* "ry^ur 




ML 



il Kfr"\ h\ 



Q P&r*yi)&UL/ 



JL^. 



ES 







-PdA 



\\ti*^ Cic^\?^)f<F 



fejflBe^ £o^ 




35S 



-m 



~%£ 



Kg S-h^ 



R..XIII.I.) 



cZa. 



■-g" 





S H" - 



# 



-£■ 



L^ 



W 



A">e/icA* 



'M- 



'h 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

& M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



?2l 



TiacrrJU-- 




OCCUPATION 



EI*a± S 



^rv '<^c 



— / ■- — I ■ 



COMPANY 



ft- 



PETITION 



**-€ Si^AJ /Wp V 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 






NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



f-.tr D« jX. %X£ "N*taT> ^Ck'j .fc 



Jj . 



A 



P; M 



tq* 



*X£_ 






^ 



T^ 



*m rr ''> 



■)i ,. 



feo it 



flo£# 



'?At<P ££sjce 



< W < £ €^£. 



in/ 



HM~ 



2^3 /? /7/c/r,/h*Yh ^z^PjSssLi £, 



r 



> -' &= 



UJL- 



daXLi Sj . ',/a. 




'^r^- 



2 



i^— 



L-C 



•ajl 



U-f/SuU 



-\$/y> 



■y^r 



U 



#o& /A^/3<r-/7 






£4gi= 



^ 



r-v 



Bfoj 



•^>U 



*Tet4hHCor*> G 



»J*\L. 



2 • 5ft«4>ri 



/ I 



£ Lorn..*!]' 



i/AL 



^^rnk 



(//9<L 



£^J±k£]±L 



$$*£ sg&u&L 



ilAJL 



&t=_ 






Alk 



Jl 



* ! 



^ 




Y Nvglj: 



3SE 



4-4 



a- A -.. 




414 



/7. >~).l- 



g "Safwc^ 



V.d'L 



XL 






\ \ 






UA<^ 



/c^-~ 



^ 



Jtk^ 



1 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



WMljE 



OCCUPATION 



^qM/3/O.Q. 



COMPANY 



Um 



INT I 

u 







(?t£ A1ILCN 



[a /u i T £ n 



// ft 



UA ', T&P. 



/ / 



' /&/ ifSrfC?* 



is f / 



ZW 



ft^P fr?sew*A//c 



1>MITS^ 



'-py *?**-M 



Rtyyz ^w7( 



HA) 



iil 



£ 









.<VjV SW^.-r 



Rc^wn p Ser \ifcp 



-Ofll. 



•/ 



/> 



Crt-C~- 




<Y 



j^_ 



V^£~ 



// 



^^v 






/ / 



? / 



U'?tL 



UAL 



i( 






~&isri/p S>JaaM*^T^^ 



^~C 



*z: 



%.>*w /&£ 



t { 



/ /fa 




(( 



r i 



-L£U 



// 



ML 



tv\c tc 




T. <■. 



X 



^_i_ 



■A- 



0M- 



^1 









PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commiss ion's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 




OCCUPATION 



£& Umk - £j&2Z&& &&± £ ■(=■ 







COMPANY 



^. / ' 



$f>9<&C<> stk/e 3 sf/i/S/Z's^Z. ./£■ Z&2lZ>£i £&££*££, 



m 



^S^^SP^^S 






\er 



m 



m^^ SfflESgEE i'.V.frct 



r^L^\J^r 



tofe: 



l 7 






aur yguu£ 



frl 






?/2nfcl P < 9&Tl \/l C£ 



f/A 



* * o 



A 









1 



^^' 



'JZIUUL 



a 



^ 



R /I-*/? 7 f'-- A''- 



u/7/- 



L |4 r=^,,^ 



[JAL- M ^-c m 



^(\( 



) , "r5oVrv/i>«T 



tiV\ ^(VtW^ 



MM /salc/ 



(2&L, 



PAuU B/^w^M fl\EQt£MJ£ 



<jA 



k. rocH r 



y^^r.hjAA/ir. 



(/AC 






UA ^ 



tin: hii- H^MfJ /ta^p 



1//FZ 



J3 



: v#rtl/iAjJo sf. £/?AV/?JW<- 



~R<s>rt P 



UAL 



'//*2&7 




■v/lf 



^ 



£/££- 



z.L-q.4l^Jx,\ 



L( & 



F&Gr n\ C4Z.14>C&[2UC 



'-uC'^jz* 



<Lt#&r>ut-&£t- 



U*L 



^OUjua 



■& 



Hi i "*-<: 



~^4JMLZ &_*. 



Sc op tujceS 



t//?l~ 



T\;''^Zy<£L 






C'*^ 



CM/_ 



1 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 






NAME . OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



r, ^>w^ 



£ 



-fC^/h^Cr—- 



i /)-> *_ t/ , ~s £ y 



\aA. 



g*l 






</A 




PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 





COMPANY 






A4f /* n 



*A-a 



AS-v^ 



/-? A^/ 



fi fewCD 






Kgzbp 



T~p 



C^<uj^c.-\jlJ^ 



(Jjuskaj. 



TJ-.S 



&M- 



fo~~f 



SL.J, 



UtL. 



XT ^iu<.i«.(i. *- 



R'W-(£ 



L/tYt I £ j) 



CV/v///>-> //2&&CS 



C£<3/'V 



'Ac 



<^ c y^ hx^ 



/hi SjAMAtfG/f" 



fiAh^L- 



m^ 



QjtefZ 



"CT 



At 



^^<0^ Pc^.T 



%{<^ fifm% 



(?_aAAAp 



Of\[ ,- 






£hoa 



£ 



U A L 



Yukt ltlkrtn?r?-i 



B^ 



UAL 



mzad£** Q-^^^j? 



&W 



u*bC^ 



dint* /,^k|? 




W~ 






U 



ft 










&U* 






gg^ggg 



S3T 



■ ^jfeg^y 



33 

2S 




r 






PM/ P 



# 



X 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



Ba^^^tj 



V, ,^W Ajf±2£^j r 



WW 



/ / 



//■7it?l*r' '' • 



/'/ 



* 



tf~(/~ 4t'^ Lfu^j 



\ tMU 




-fi-U 






u a c 



■^- 



n*& 



{2A-^L 



UIS£± 






—— <t=^ 



^L 



&1^~X2X>. 



'-A^U& 



uLmgh 







IAVx^ov^ 



Jn^£:0 ^UJhM^ 



*6, , ft JU^U* 




£AiUP ^&Uicj& 



<*^|£> <,or^^> 



g£ 



/<- 






amP &>euicp 




UJQ l I 



Z/s 2A 



iOh^ 



TJTfC 



ru'lf 



ut0d^m\ 



KoG. 



^ualq Hr>^_ 



s9<t^<*~- 






\2&L- 










C/A^ 



1 "a-- i-*-^* — 



04-L- 




'/>/. 



fctfrluK- 



UMs 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 




OCCUPATION 



-fifjc 



COMPANY 



/U,t 4*~y Y^fr^ eO^ ' r ^iMp ^Cv'ic^ U^-TeD MfciJU^oS 




a>aW/° £££j£L£ 



r-A/r-Cb 



«3 > % L //Vg'f, 



& 



W-«_. 



Is 



r 



rfcr. , 



// 



// 






fs*J/T&4 s4,/e*/^s*-* 



fiMM 7 <>&Kl//t(> UM2&2. A/£/j,u^ 




~£{>r*f> ^eAS/cc 






A/te"<?. "'4^*J ;CL 



/ 



d£±^iz 



6/ /f 6 



/fe-<P 



&£^ 



it At- 



\^ 



\ v 



fofe i6^y 



fUW^F ^CflcU t 




fa o»wf 



Sjl.<j 



[)yJH A ir 



X/h»j/) S-e^i/ 



.^v/: c<y /?/s{ 



MAi/W-, ?VgvWW\ 



Ulfl- 



Sfo<X 



UQ 






LLdl 
Cfll 

a /-> L 
(/At- 



w 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
thair permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

b & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



'^yC^r 



r 'Ofy 



E .ff^^c^c 






COMPANY 



(£&=, 



f 



±2JL 







% 



tMssA 



u 



AL 



\ P -VAiO 



Va A L^ 



l&<~ 



U^W^ 



A^tn, HL^tl 



y^- 



' /'^!: -<- y./ ' . ^/,.s Jt&gaZt 




J*/ j/-^A- 




y&gaaU&t 



UAi 



<£&i<- 



-a 



/^Cr 



' £ '< '<*-■ 



UX 



V^d* 



UAU 



Tf 



t*s*G> 



jtfj^ m 



UN*- 






?>) *Y-, j^c^i — -C. 



UA 



k4~">'-£ --'- 



,^-;,- yy//^ 



7^ 



vwz 



^-7^v>^? 



R 



Ci^v^^D 



Jj£L 



SM?. 





CM 



(2*£z£2± 



TEEZ 



IK^-O 



ML 



j f-/7m 



Pa 



t£ 



fit 



r 



^SP*?- 



^cX*r*<~^ 



7WE 



^4 



#V/ 



CdzflZ 











SL 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



UtLc 



OCCUPATION 



C/esk 



[ggKZ? wEEiMl ^7^0 



COMPANY 



U-C. &;^ti -Wi/c- 




c^iM^ 



HCT 



7IH 



1 ( 




I to QaaakL^jTvk 



^.yK^^A^Ji 



h 



h 



vf 



fMlS _^ru 



ti'XC; 



^U ,5 . U^yLZ^r^ 




C.I I rt\~Q-r-r 



^w^*^ 



l^~ ^>- ^\vi fl'h 



l/M/l.'P ft***! /ft 



J^k 



■zf 



'Jj_ 



&Ur 



1>U/±JjUh. 



rn'jx^/+jEffs- %-Stf & 



/&*; //*/**,./)/£/? 



~u±.& 



/I 



h 



11 LL 



(AX E 




A 



U. S£S, 



uMH 



)y\o^V\a^ l \(<oC 



42l 



^S 




du.1 



^sr 



zz22 



//. 7> 



c l^Jr 



,( fiUM^n 



etl 



m% 




Ct-k- 






gi? 



£ 



_£42 



^_ 



1 






OeN 0.I&K-K 



\/iy. A/£SrAr'«f~ 



E5 #/*jl*eJK*A) ^f>£JL\),Se*_ 



L£6 

aszx 



i^i^aa^ 



\b 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

& M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



tyj^teL &u^ 



O CCUPATION 



COMPANY 



I J A / H 




hecA 



^M^A 



U.A.Lr LTA)^ 



&£U 



s 



&M. 



(AUu 



$&><£S 



UQ 



sf& £s? 



UfrU 






UJ^^ 



it 



M 



&*tt 



L~<9*i*ij "V £-cA^ 



Pa 



M 



£JI 



^nM- (s ^y 



cp^A^y 



/j<lS S<&&> 



iM<- 



;m£ 



t/y^ejLf^- 



^ v^tfJ f^tX l~<-e^ 



WLzST 



^frl- ^U^A 



^ftL 



i^ ^) 



£UfA TFZH 



UAk 



£VLK TecH- 



l/AU 




PfaU. An+folt 



ftfoP /tuaixs 



e^fi, 



Mac 



rtUPiO/VlSUfi) ^il&fili&r 



UA^ 



e*x^ 



UM 




jMl 



m 



LLAz 






i '. v -?; 



/rift <■ fy L g 



WU K 



(K.P-*, I 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 






OCCUPATION 




fe^^A /fe^/fA/'C 



COMPANY 



'SstT£& 



MCc^a*j- 



M-Z£n 



Si/-ru*u,c 



UU,T EtP 



/i^/^y 



M£cW/l*//C 



■/A/sr&p 



'u^^S^ J '~~f. jJ^lx.^/ . 



d£*=LL2=6M. i <T 



u^rni^ 






/, 



\tLf-K-JO 



/7/A.u LyA/AS 






^Mj TLFC 







i j 



pLhvvifC 



UttrrQ} 



,K»f><j hOAch »Vi) »j" 



uft^ 



fe^p^^ 



4fcc4,-A/,-*7^ 



iJLV\\±&2> 



JZM- 



7Kac 



% 



ffrl^ 



Tt><* 



/^/*»4*^fK- 



MtrAfiir, 



LC^ 



+& 



(tdl±£££/l~Jfce* 



fr^<r<s>i /£**. L~<~> 



C{/\l 



T^lA. 



/y.r<^*asi . 



^ur^/e^L 



0£frk 



U«t.+dSA>rli« 



e-4 



Ob* 



/farffc /l^ 



j4ec£ 



at 



Ift - tt 



4/f=:<^r-/ 



oy 





SEJJLCusz&xual 



Of\L. 






PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



^£^7^ JZpbo>f±&^r^ $ £ JE ±4 & M - 



% ms&L /u c 



1 dirL^ l /L- n 3oaJU~~- 



K&L .ft.'^f 



Oi/c SUcc/fs,*^^ 



U *Ji rt i> 



a? a -re 



ft /C IM4J-L .&*/ I 






ui A) i e j_ 



3? 






1MM 







S^^AC <L 0,^*^-4- 



Qu L_b 



/l^c<^^?i^o ^IzsC. 



/%3J7TW tSc\l/i<LJU 



l6z~*^^<<£<l/s. 




**£s 



sfA*u jebxJk 



U*L- 



/^7w*a^£*^wv 



CUL* 



/U<z£^ 



£&l£ 






C/4L2 



ZJ9M ^, 



Oftl- 



trr (iiMof^ 






CHf-f 



fafe t 
5& 



£L 0- JtfiKio 



ZfTcyeKesPsd 



U &L* 



uAi~~ 



u 




u±. 



VPK 



ffiWL £rfQ3^ 



UAl 



v 



J JfS 







I 



££&££ 






UAL 






V 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 




OCCUPATION 



fytn. 



Q- 



COMPANY 



( w;^F£ ? 



T^7~ 



'hw ^5r(0^ 



( 



L ' U£tiu 



^ -.-■■/ *« 



i?U*Mffi 



Z^SZLz 




Tiff* * 



nhv±L 



SpE^puilZ 



ztt 



{ -£M'^ 



■fowr&saJ 



sfoac SJJiK 



J//*«s> stS*/? 



QA3M 



RAihP 



) hjh a f/vt . JlCx A i/yfj 



^&L 




X& 



<Ul 



JZ*. 



<£&-C-4^ 



$<LTi<<U 



M^ 



± 



U,\JrC 









\1 erf Zerj/.ce ~ty 



d&fVlce, 4.y*,i" 



^^AC 



^x/ /-* 



Urm/r^j 



3Ja^ 



Mm. fort- 



icL 






<bftAC~~ 



ULl 






toih 



£&L — *f~ 



<zb^ 



J~&y S^A-sr 



5«/. 



4 



•QtedkLt. 



/V £ £gy^?3^ 









PETITION 



\1 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business, in their same locations. 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




f&np 



<> ... /-. 



V6 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



*ym£HaQ 



l^Ma^\WHAftl)J 






He 



N COMPANY 



X.jlir ['' 3ort\flr A o 



m Inlltl 



mAcA I'm-if 



OJlLi 



(\\Khmi 



1AL 



'.Tto^ 



Vw^t-^ 



SJL 




Bfla&HiriSs: 



\. V <N I 



JlAd 



XjMH^ — 



UMiLMlh: 




AlfcK 



^AL 



a A u 






na.chtrtt-j 7 



U/?/. 



/l/(Mh«itdt 



LL&Lt 



0a,J^*/ 



tf±AA 




l^la^jU^^^ ■ 



KA.L. 



A? **Z^*2>d 



Q*rV 



A«j<w* 




fJAl 



JML 



/Wdcu ><;><; 



dJi fe 






^Lg^A 



y.A?.^, 




^ D. /^<f£/s*L'f£ 



£/**#■< 



^L 



w& 



V-O-"^ 



U A- I 



W&. V^upeiL-^ 



, U\, 



"Toe/ W*i^ 



ggz&^gaz&^l 



U A 



4^j£ 



/y»Qc»miaT//tlg.CH 



C'rtL 



j* 711 ^THae- 



Al 



cm > ti i a 



i ' 






tf 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 




OCCUPATION 




COMPANY 



cure 

lu l Z 



2224zZtiuJaZ- 






77TZ-2 



£t2£&£4b&&L. 



u 



jFl 



a £l£ 






C/Z/ksJlvhaZr* 



ULLL. 



1&A&UA t-4-L 



//U*0 



JtL 



L 



: kZs^y ^ 



/flir^msZ 



,1?ifA> (V- 



^ Eg 




Ar-O^/ A/*&lt 



^ ft/ . 



&4 a^JU 






MX . 



OAL 









£/<? 



Ct/jc 



J/± 



i 



/f/a^XtsTu^ 



UAL 



Todi Wl/4^p£ 



u* <- 



(£JLL 



1 ■ *y ■'■ " ' ' * 






1H 



U 4.1 



■ }Xt/' / fctfJUl^r- ' 

IF 







"Ts 



&£M 



A/ £ *■- A,/ * i^^v^-/ 



MA : 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



<2, 




OCCUPATION 



£d&£J&ULZ r 



COMPANY 



^r^LM - 



// 



^^z 



£fr JhaJ& 



CL 






mL 



uMlM^hL 



UM^ - 



Sj»le£ 



gteUuiLLLk. 



M- A. c 



itsis- ,-^WC 






(A <*- £ 



MaCH^iSi" 



<J fl< 




na m^u.kJ'^t 



O • A>. 1 



M /*>/&//, ^ & 



U.S3-> 



L*? SQEJJ£^j£ 



/H/*Ct//AJ'S7~ 



UAL 




Q. ^ 



<J4C^ 



jA-co 



1«£±jUMl± .r- 



( > i*r.f 



UAU.r&fuil't 



QA< 



^/^^j^€^>^^ 



<^/?^Z- 



/\flft^y~uAM 5 y 



l/VAC 



MIMUK 



UAL 



mmi JL LJjjUimdL 




u/?z. 



MuUJ* 



22^1 



/2^C+^ 



U/fL- 



-XL 



ll[nrL l^^/ 



\uU*t*t -TQcS/nS 



( f 



tAA± 






ZL 



tr'/?*- 




/.£/*£> fi/\AC^W/ST z 



uHL 



UAU 



M ^f^ 






U Al- 



■M 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



fe m ■ V Ll 



crv^£kt^ 



3. 



L-esld. A/fic/JZ/K^f- 



COMPANY 



tiAc 



[),fK filers J#a~ /ftaftiJ,cT 



' J /cjjrttef F. )fjecrtrt££ u 



UM 



u^-^- 



yTsrj/Zf -J. /liZ/Stf 



M£&£dlL£L 



LL i\ L 



ZftS/L/C? SAWC-t^Jr dL£c_£zdU£Z. 




<-•*£- 






UA.L 



cj&L 



y/>/l'i^l^/ 



-Xto^Lx-S 



U&L- 



JM**<H 



tJ floci^j-aJf 



U& L 



\£&L* .7?, &k* 




<~>*"TI'^'£> 



Tb/i L. 






u£l 






r 



(jt?fy><L>dk~~ 






;Vj<w/a/^ T 



U* 



s7?s*AJ^ Urf a.* ollksel uAL 





Uf\ ( 



&^frfrrtS~?S 



-U 



*L 



<*™^<r*>~~<-^- 



^zz- 



ua 5^1 



fl^^L^ 



/??rfc>^'± r 



/U.J^Ui Kjj ^x 






A^ 



auL 



9. t fr "7^&/ 



in 



I. f*AO Hlrt&t stftST 



LULL 



§L&LL*lsX 



\K ,\ I 



M&&U ^V" 



(,-/?^ 



^2 




^ i t-c^ £ /-< cjy 



WjcU 



■ J sua 






*-*~L 



W^ £/// (b7£ r 



c; ff a 



//^, 



7 
r 4JL 



v~ 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



>,A> L-CL 



^iu 



4 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 






•CkAC/S/t (-■ fiti/*' 11 



rbsuiL. Cie^^ 



U S -Pcsr/iL Sc%>.<-c 




/*. 



•\£x^k**j£tL<^ 



•#> 



^~ 



Q LL&Za 



L t C ECl£CBjL <:'/-* 



MaLJfiq&JzL 



O^PS 






L^tsC^cL's-SA-*- 



-\\Qiij(i^ 



\M<---<f ~$IZ2^L 



ii 









s~Z 



_ 



// 



U3 A'£. 



1h 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 




OCCUPATION 






COMPANY 



o.til 



h&a ■ w* - 



usl 



/kfagkiL. * $ 



U-R-f _ 



t£& w*\ ? 



Cs/3 



/}'4<r//-/su( £/ 



UA.L- 



jif /fn H fjs30. 



Ujjc. 



flnchitu-J 



UAU 



^^■^vC,. 



/- 



Zp^fZxz. 



Ji/L*^ 



/ r 



y tv4s, 



//. 



//. 



Ue/f/ .Sidles 



m£h&£k 



^i . 



?-*^t- l<z*^ £ 



^g^^H 1 f 



en 



tA/fL 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



■y 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 







COMPANY 



/VHP 



ZS 



9^ 



>£W^ 



// 



/ 1 










W M^9^ C 



Us 



Po ST/? C £/>7/><L& Lj££ ft/vF/^/^^ 




// 



// 



// 



Po'TAI L-nPL&tk 



;/ 



rnf \rV\ 



AH! TaQ 



<Sv/ 



5/^J< 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present^ locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



>5 



NAME 



4c ™ Q 




iha 



OCCUPATION 



WWflAvflfeif 



COMPANY 



KSpS 



yU^^ 



|z-u>/ ./ — ^r~vXor 



2>i g 



cum 



nl/hi/JAA, otsfL 



US£IL 



'\ J^fcV /u^ 




O sPs 



« 



OSf>S 



o^Afe^c 



3 ^^^ 



r^HA ^AM^JuWy- 



-A. 



Utl 



y/ ^^-^i - 



-' Tt 



MliL 



■<L*Ll 



JJJJMl. 



S^c^Sft/. 



t 



> r ^ 



i$6uwik 



c&JL 



tJSf*> 



/ rd/u^/A 



u& 



n 4 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 







a/kno/z 







T-l 



£UdK @k 




18 










PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



Zis 




OCCUPATION 



JJ^/hf. 




COMPANY 



U/=l< 



3FXA 



U_dL 




/o$c&- 



^£M. 



££_&&2&rl*Xl 



$S^4 



&**_ 



rfttM f. 



M 



QyKjCa" 



«&i 



(9*<^& 



»<f&< 



(?/irgUJ/W fi£fi76/7T - 



,\SCTTf7',* 



&?l£z ;yi,\Jg£. 



(^oajti <£*eJ7y9t. d,s? 



?<■••■. <r^ 



Pas~ gf/zle* 



^^4- p^rf m, 






u.s;)?X ' 



[ l . (V\. ?rKVJP^ 



ytdjj^L 



s&- 



tdft^A^r^ 







Pc 7~&z JwTZ 



44. 



fer^y/6fc 



&**!*,* 




. /Ay 



>/^Q7~ 



/?£■& UctAJ S////S 



/Httti? 6/t4><\ 



wr 






U-L</ 



Tfc Z 



^c 



-Ci^ Vf\\it7 



2A. 



V) 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



£7 k/ ( 




ZU 4.< 



OCCUPATION 



A/frr-Ar siJ, ^ 



COMPANY 



$<=PK UjiL 



/Qjp/i/fJ? 



±JdttL -fc.JrklNC 



'faftt*r<afficG4 



F^zfrGrtLtr.f- riy>7- 







£**s 



JgL 



2 5 /c <f(~a L 



A^^or 



GfS 



-= ft<s£€ gUJg^C-.- 



<ce> 



fiC-euf 




Q_£L 



£(&-<& 



Qw&Wt 



/?£&*■ 



~&5& 



bo 



PETITION 
// 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME .1 



^tSJJLki 




OCCUPATION 



T>^ 



COMPANY 



n^c-o H^h 



\\; V 



i i-^'-u 






1 Ah/rYi(yK^ 



£&L 321 



Jtc ./.~cfc 



S) i i/K.-e.'i 



C/c\-\iC '-i T^cVd A 



\ , 



M LjLOJ^ 






i be U I,. 



fc> 0„, t -- /iAr^rt 



/M^/A/r, //.i/jf/v^ 



- ;-s c a/aj c C:-- - ^ 



D^inc 



d L*n.i*<. /^7T / 



L» Li 



rvn.^ ; i/* 



Victim 



CJ££jsm H,yh>/ 



7 






<^> 



^ m 



, \£kn*y?*srl &L<UL ~cEl!jL 



^kj\^c^l rhrn. 



OJ& r , ^ £fe££L^ . 



E 



y*<^ 7M7 



/ ^ ^/^r^t 



g/?<^r~ 



GJA&0&. &sl a ^- 



* 



i W> 



'j/jfUs^, 



fir±s±L 






t 



lL 



3 



U~*A 



( Lut-n thkl 



a- 



■ryy.ci^'^p^ 



^S'&t {C. {jj&tk, 



- a 



i fi "> Joae 



ii±dtl 









C/~»?< 2 rv ^ Atr-r^ pfL. 



C>l/*£'CA. /#, 7£C 



-XcW \ 




^/rcK-'vi 



£gg l.OiZl 



gjx££ 






Ck U 



(Ufi.^0^ fel&i 






/^ ! " 



^/rn^ ^g£ 



L^&4 r«ij?,„i, 



^J# 



tP.^Vi ffi 



:x 



-b 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 




OCCUPATION 




COMPANY 



f )fH 



LL 



1L 









£&L 



/I id 1ME3L >'Mrr.jf\ \ T>hl 



6A ' 



(IlkXiuj gj^hdju 



2xu±< 



fY\tn ^' : 



DH U 



7Tffl Tffiiyitem 



£XfA£± 



- Drf U 



<knnuA /&%, 



&€({M^Z 



r .4.M<-M 



LA 




LL 



L 




\\ 



ML 






■vOS- 



M 



M 



'( 

7w^ 



hX 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME ; OCCUPATION s 

fw £ Qfa- ffo faux 



COMPANY 



CiMVc U/v *^ 



lv i^u 



W£M. 



c^L 



/ A 



OC SvP&ZSP'S&Z. -fhaffrJ ferru^ 







MwriL 



•\VP3gjftg5 



--22<2 /ZV.y^/i/gA- 



- /..n\ **j(, yc «-^^/^ 



/)£tui>/l/ 



&*SL G> 



1L £_ 



MuMi 






n<^~ 



ym 



3^: 



z~S 



f/.r<CM*V 






~'?z/^r 



&Sj 



kVrvi 



zzz 



-Ic,tt4«*,~. r3ih.- YJA-lr. 



SAnp. 



j3h 



Mil 



Vo 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



>,y,y ^'Cw^ 



\A 



'. :•/■ 



s-> -'h 



22 



± 



y' t- 



'-* ' u/ f*-"^ &«^6p 



iZA_L 



(/ A . ^xflQc ^ 



StHLUS) 'Jhtt**-?.. 



fisTk-i_ auruLK 



a sr 




£ 






Qz&J&JL fhi'S, 



C f'- 'Al <? 



s Drtv<^ 



£e>^— _£sL 






aL fr*^ 



^>e/^ 



tmjl£L^£dJ. 



/?/-/? 






nfl 




.6' S i 1 



4- 









.Asd 



a±j 



£ jjr; fo^*^ 



Oll*£aJL [JhdLtd&b 



fi^nyS 



<US«S/f*<V* 



(2l££zl# dxL 



Sf 



USPS. MviHautvCA 



U.S1P5 ; 



l.rrsr.J-Htrr.lf^j, 



C ti^t/rcy C(f>rj_ 






fA%rw6 rrfrcfis— 



m-S- c^r^^f 



MzL 



, nr* — , 




J 



r,ii/rf 



JZ 



X(^v- 



rr 



T7Xr?t 



V^O^^; 



ft^V QSJ&k 



^H 



ISLi 



\*V 'itS>'U^\ 






JjCjJtsudji^ 






£32 



5 ^> si < - ■<- id 1 / 



Eft 



■ »rri l i . — r r i i f * u - - i 



r /-7 >C 



M. 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



V 



NAME 



'Life 



OCCUPATION 



/^#&*; 



COMPANY 



CJ{ v&***?^~(~-*^^ m . 




yy^ii^*^-^cy 



/%><?,£# /i 






-Tir\AJ<./\d+ 



4 A-lliA4m 



£d£ /*>>< 



S/K £&Z 



7> Q-fULfaAU&sr 



U 



ALU^^J 



£nA)MS> GuPbtWttQJL 









(Jd Usjtf&L 



c*~iuUivr 



ftfia^ t> ^\TC^ 




Ptecetftton Q> 



Ga^gobJ 



irfcM fWsr 



H *\sC Uj. 



'-Q^c^^L' SslW^-ij? 



JjlaMALCk 



Ve<W 5&A jt*£j 



#.<SlG, 



^*:j 



^ 2 *>- 



.VV" " ■ ') ■ ■ >' ' 



7] . 



— i — ; — ; — 77 ■ 



WM£lJ77, 



™* 



jA )T^Vu v -^ £■?_ 



7> 






~^s^ 



2 rr.ta. \ . r^S^r- 



m — rym ;■ y>H^ j/,iy^\ 



Ul£L !•>** 



t^ </ //^^T-T/^V?' 



frS' /\fahft\\ 



&rfart£jL ^v^-frt^^ 



6. ^^3 t 4 



llfjMOKW 



'%' fa+. 



Gu&ztL 



HJZ. 






s*\; 



LCICC- /^£ 



Cf^OL^- 



^V«# 




^ 



INXfN 



^ o p V V^V V \ kO 



J5&>Z& <£^jA 



s&vrs'.t'^p /0^A^fj> 



/ r y--- i *ow //,*<■ ■/< 












i^Mr.U£j» 



v&L-i 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels. 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



K,,# ttf*^.*: Cj.l* 



e 



COMPANY 



CxAtM^ifa^ 



£ 



A . *AAcC U^. 



Cl&sJL 



/5^>*v^zc<>trf-fi. 



-\b*~- U/W>y 




J7AAAKV 



mz 



y yK^Ur>a^ 



y/- ^/^/^^ 



Mt- 



r_-4?yZA- 



flAl4l#£/ZA*r 



tOzLZ&c&J. 






CL-trX- 



h i' 



/Wc^ClM^ 




% 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



tS £ P H- QlcqLck. 



OCCUPATION 



f\jM?&|£M^ 



COMPANY 



pt\Tio^AL CAK-^- 



&QTU&X\Jr (Jj^k IJju^fi£. 



^w\6^- — 




£ 



K/^OJfyu 



llfiA^- 



<( 



\ % ^ 



m r~ 



^\j{(<(\ f&^<\ <i 



S&£a; 






ui 



kte 



if* 









/6'7£'%/*i—/J&//t M^y 



■ffJA/T-^L. /^6^6-A/r' 



f^/9/.o^^L (fa*? TfTAr^i 






% 




t/O 



(UjJfhL ffc^tj 



JL 



If? 



(sAJL 







/l^^r^J^ 



nu: 



1 ^Qa 7 






\ I ,' jg 



i Liu. 




<Q^2 



^g£^ 



S£R\/iCE 



MA UOAJ4U 



IM&^MMk 



*&=*/& l ffc^r 






A/Ar/'^/A/. 



Z^kZiLK lii^CJ ^ 



±t (2SZ& 



QjuUrti iju 



A-/ H-f^/x-g ( 



• - js *^' 



^y(X^^--- 



^ — - 



k(&^ 



jjA/ 



iZ2S 




x zi^Z 




^sz? 






S-MUt&*'H0>J 



aJaTi&a}A1_ 



^J£ 



i t 



/sa -'Ac A6t=^ 



.U/Pi^-M 



V^O 



^Hsf»4 



:pe^\fge ; 



MA^lO^i 



w->... ,: V K.-^fc, »:(•'(/ 



ftiUC A fori. 



5 c, 



4 



if /"A." 




//- i/i,i 4jUA ^ 



(^ 9 --i^^ 



A^a J-*^ */ 



at 



.J^s. 



'/V-' 



Ytf<*— 



A-?/ 2 - 



Ul<- 'i'*-* 



d'^C * + 



fe. 



bl 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



^Jg*f /=*'L<.\J 



UJ^iAudjC ££&&L 



/££&- 



'^Q- 



&i!%Mt 



(]rj<3-oLht& 



'Joy a/Act? 



Art£&cJ+*-' tf7<£//'.>C.r /iL->- r £*£ -'C r 



~£Z* 






aj,^> /A,y X-. /,/- 



r? fh 



OU dd£ 



QrrX^.^L, 




//. 






&J# 



^ 



£ 



&4dL &££& 



^3, Gi.\.,:y,'-,.rr 



ad* 



OPtP/mOfHS C?£[i fillQMS. 



Tl^A 






■ujAWjP 



j/s 



(,T\JU 



^J>^y^^-J SzX-J V 



US Ps 



fifty @M£ti&££. 



Sff/: *V 




5 7 ^zc 



ip/^ 



^ w^y 



6piA( 



StitfiC/flfc GMoJt 



*~r^n- 



t\uk 



tekj A 



baMk*k 



l) 






r JmAjd&i — iXI y/^ 



O^'^v^ 



Gr/etP A:,"£/Cjk~ 



fSa**2±J M && o 



0^ tE. 









it ( v itur 



6 '< --V 



^^^ 

_^a 
2 



r ^ r~ 



^_ 



u 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



lU^M^. 2^bj±2±: (T~^c de^Us 



f{'# tiv 



COMPANY 



a. S . /°.S { 



& 



~EjX 



J) &£*i 



\U6- 



aa 



QfZL-rA 



^jtj^hdf 



z 



;-/— . \-r.r-,r 



tTK^kc^l Sok^a 



Cf\L\ handier 




* < r rk 



■AS_ 



6 Ky ccxp 



£"- 



'fTN 



-_$±Ak^- 



frifL-^sy , 



"/fc/V/rj-w./t '" 



APfa? 






^G/'/Wltt 



< gg L L£&d&L 



J. 



/unta/' fi#/f<r 






/</& <fy*fs 



w^;,^ 



iz. 



s&J-r - 3 . 



c 1 z~n^^/' 



&&? 



V^'^TA 



tX^X ^Wv~ 



-U£ 



b urr* 



2E 




mi 



ix^^—- j^&v] 



m^: 




*£^«-+\ 



jL 



J^JZ 



tl.AivtPS*-iei/lc 61*114-1 J 



I \jA 



Mb 



vh-i 



i 



y™-'_ 



•U-A H A 









CI 



4 ?/j+m 



Lu 



_C 



/%v/ 









f* 



S~^ * ''' A- re -y->^ 



/A, 



LXL 



HrSASU 



^r 



y\ 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



J&n A. ff6sj- 



OCCUPATION 



VP-^a/es 



COMPANY 



fin/tahon M&h 



■ftfbL 




S^L^ 






'CO. 




PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



% 



NAME 



E KWeSf SC04AJ 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



-Tile^Ay 



JAM* (&&r<2- 



— Y — 1» — • ~~/ 

-Te'igiA LEA v J.^a) Cb. 



rtafLG* flgr 






c w&o Apt 



c $ft 








C 



-Ou 



camqMus: 



g ps , 



Jov\o Papik 



rfWi^i^Rv 



gATEL^A-W 






C&&& 3 



m&p- 



^<=-s> 



C-Q.JI^ 




5uJ)£rvlsci£ 



&«1 



<?<-> 



*V, 






GfCTtiuA Y 







(±M. £&LS 



j-jj*. WL 



Mk> 




kL 









ic^o*pe<$s 




I fz cusrnasSfrts 



&l£L fer- 



aJ(J& 



aME^E. 









ix. 



3J. 



Ahf 



4mfonT $aaW< frt^fr*. veJ/ot^ 






t( 



rnvonr 



£. 



A_ 



1°- 



PETITION 



V 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



€^L. 




COMPANY 

T7T 



^C6&~^&tsZr /*fa'/ ^f/rt. 



7? 



O; 




i+t^f? ^5/Z us^l 



t> 



4 



&2&k QdJC 



cs-i la. 



J^Utfart yupez-vncfZ 



* S 7 



K^JTCZf 



TtbyjA 



\)(7ir\>y^ 



W*JuAL(\ 



^f 2 - 



\ /M^Z. 




(&/_ fro i M£^t&* 



{ Li^Tz/s 



nw 



¥^ 



fy^-^CfC- 



21 



AA. 



\*d&b&J&u£ 



t: 



j>/n-AiHy^ 



^ 



£,, <? ■ A^i^VK^''' 



<^»1> Qu&Usg. 



/A 



~/i^<P^i-^ C ;, , . 



>^--^<- ■'&-■ St*-i 






fc-f''' /KfttOG? 



11 



■^L 



o^rTT** £Ldx± 






AjuAl 



e. 



% 






^D^'-l'O 






Szcfy 



£t££2 




-3^ 
3&LL&6&Q 



L *^c^cm 



TfaG/trf'i^AufiP 



71 



^a^r >t4^ 









ga^fliL 



^/?c^ 



a 



A-^= 



£-' 



o,, r 



/-fr i /-/aW/( 



^L 






".^OJc-r . 









2 



/./I 






H> 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




'PETITION 



Vi 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



N/\ 




U 



erJ\£-Go ^g^o— 



Aire- Ov*_j? A-D A 



M 



CMJjq AAZhfi 



ArV^ CfrU/hllb- 



"-&& ' 



^&/i I 



q A-fitC^c? A<Zf,^Tr 



Ft i <fc Ci *<"*£> **- 



f-v^ 




J&aii. 



^ _^^/urr 






^j ^lIM 



(Zl&*u~>-)-\ 



Pj&cy* \frS± 



A>, , (f 



E 



A* 






tA. 






^?/Z? J/***/ 



/)/M 



5UP£JlD/5o/2. 



3J¥U 



■'tif QH&7Z.<.£> 



Ekzi 



(hAyUKiAx^jL 






'txZh^kxMu, 



L&Aj 






<HS<V>w^rt\y;<. €>(UllC^ 



C W\ ^uVeA> 



4J4e oft/'^ 



/k^c/^Tgr U/visU*' 






QiSjajshsc 



Ass.!p..-Q-rp.7 



jQg 



jjg^=gz 



&**& 7£^-T- 






£sc 



VA 



for^ ,/ W^rM 






**W&&*~£rl',neA 



; &IL. ^ -tJUu^Z^t- 



o 1/ 



<S£JA. 



$'t///i~Y 0<_Ei2-l<- 



PAA 



\ \P, *y\/t-C<^> 




1 1 



1 1 



ptiu^: 



I -S)^i^£> 



7?V 



fe£gg l 






Oh. 



Aa^Lt&ZinLZ 



&j M 



fayp 






(AtiiT^&tei 



s 



-#U^ 



//i) fevWk ZZ 



r 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



^J?.&- 



B-ftfrK? 



.^C/^h gX^ dlZ flfui/j. Qjfi/,^t 



A 



COMPANY 



zs±A 



JL 




^A^r^QN 



hd k/>* 



A,*yrf+ &r.y'Zr ].*/+-£ 




iQvrjbijiS <x-sulc 



L^. 



A t *s //i ^ S^EiQliJS. 



fa ALSL 'p],A'.'U J 



VA 



■^A 



faAa.^ CqJ_jJ^ 



t 



i^yirwt 



—lL 



-Sl 



jOa. 



^1_C 



YTrf<Wk_ ^/ 



l*^* £Jk^ 



£± 



i a ..i v a 



£>^ rtz* 






JC 



iC t7t^y~fiitr-fk. '%hm.(t^(n 






ifrU2 



4r 



/L^,„ 7//*>.-J7',: O 



25 



//..nfso )/?<),-■ j£ as i_ 



ft* ^ 



*££. 



>^ ^ /^5r/^. 



7^ 



A-^- 



^y 



4 



sv^sx^:/^^^ 




jafe 



infyujiuif 



-Ifcfl^ 



fir». 1SZ V 



s 



fctiV-'L 



/f/ZL. 



Sds£jj 



£&*t&\ per. 



I 



zggCj: jMihZL 






V^rf< 



7> 






ax^s 



sE 



4;/ftL. &C4.^ M/- 



<£79 




& & 4£ 






,^U^. 






azE&jz 



UAS$ 



1G MuQr+A.j.r 






We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



**<%. 



OCCUPATION 

3 



^^< H/fWpfvcj 



COMPANY 



/M4. 



// 



fef^S^ 



/ / 



If 



u. 



n 



V-'£ ZC i£M-^* 



JJL 



14. 



^ffh 



-y^*-«»— luL^i 



<=C3tx 




i f 



)f 



// 



i ■ i 



/Cu;/ &~u& — 




LL 



M. 



h hi 



M%£) 



TV 



Hi* 



1L 



AAU 



1L 



J_L 



/ / 



W 



J-L 



AA<l 






RMAP SVc 



*\ala 



PMejiiWl 



Ar^VU 



V 



I llll M— ■ 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



X 



n 

& 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



m 



QftR&LLfr 



Tk^k _QRtvlg.fi 



COMPANY 



'Oy^dU 



-pQ^ *S-T&P*t>h&£ Jl ^rt<L&s< 






Cm. lyzuufc^ 



(Jfifan. 



s&^y&*t~^^j4^'ji<s. 



s/S^ ^ 



y J*U<o 



\£±22- 



Irusf ^;£ 



£*£- 



^ <&^?y^~.>?^, 



'z»Srte Co?/** 



Ziti K&£ 



os?.ps 



Lyi £&x/WS&( 



Mz%iwU4&jX2 tjt^AjM. M*AM 






. M\foe fylj-p-?^ 



Ik 



K/r.y 



at. -l* /MJAts 






Thuds'? 



<**£ &£JUk 



.& 



^22fe^kf±a2j£ 




f T<*JU^ 



*4- 



3 ft a 



^/&U^C6<^^ 



USAj£^ 



^7m*j**+*-^l,_ 



t%4 



^yA//f//^ 



foff/fcrfrcf 



^7?zsk/i^ 



j.s?tfVgr bccc*»&*->7~ CcjZ&c: 



G&rsoAy fks7Grsr~ Sez^czrs 




&££*&£: CJ&totet A+C*>;eA* g&tikk 



Maataaa —? 



■' ■ 



Q 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitcher-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



V7 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




2>*2- ^w.y^sfe*. 



^^^y=^C--/t 



<r ^-*>_ 






^4z 



l4jaMJ£^L^k^£. 






jZ 



Si 



C VUA-lX-7*- 



/7?<fJ**> 



S^r 



QjM&aft 



MXc^-- 




JMML i£jgg6^ 






Cfifc 






&mlul£ 







f im^± 




H/LL<J{ 



t^La 



** 



'4- 



(AtM ±tttM± 






f flSTfl Cl#fc 



il.S, P s 




C£lH 



^A 



•^stOftQjpfXMMB^^.N 



jj^Sai^fSgu \. y&cA 



\s&*fu(\ _ 93COC4~4r> — 



4^^^^^ 



fc-f? ^ ^^ 






CY/ sPrWjjt^ c ,- 



jj^sas: ^< 



S2££L 



■s — It 



\23te*±. 



"^f^^ XX*J%\ 



W-llxtlAjhUsg DMaul/ 



Ac* 



s. 



^-^ 



^&/z^- 



. cM wmojff^ 



fifty} r< /^^W 



Sft/Tty ^.,A^<r 



A,fe>v$h $?JTb.%e P,w-L 




M 



^lA>Mt^ 



U£L 






^s^: 



n^rw ^/vr 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



£&L& izm&l. ^]^// f?M r £>c0i/*»r- /^/t^-cD 



2. 




*WC CM 



gA^f 5 UK j/ I ££. ^^ f "Ugl 



JB ^ ^L^> 



^firxP SeTgcs/cr 



U/o/ Tt?£> 



I* aJdM/jL 



';. SMS 



&f<A<f} f<g£+/(C<? 



lsH''7~(5<0 



<\\ — \eu-\~* 



dJSaLSs 



£j£]CgL 



^^^ 



fe£ 




&*»*>of ^etwc-g- 



UUCT&? 







// 



// 



/' 



/7 



'/ 



If 
(I 



UP 


*u 


IK.A*^ 


r 


tr 




UM- L 




Iff- L- 




L- » <~ 




i 1 




!/ 7 




LiJ.L 





y/ 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the otner permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



2^Q2 




OCCUPATION 



Cfoso 



COMPANY 



£> 






Ct^g^ 



Al 




T^^ h^ZIZ. 



q&ZzpS z* 



T 



&3 '>— - 



'h',T-hi:;h\N 



O-^ 



;r s?r 



&mi 



Ejfik 



bC 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 




X^^-g 



-<-/'< "'-* 



-P- 



COMPANY 



^ 



faJd^ 



£jgva i 



Au^gauvJ Cr»*<>m- 



^CHAuyve^ 



*4~s 



-JZ/ZA 






^>o 



?'</£«-' 






wJgZutejt 



^ /&*^a* 



<Ze&l£Ll^ 



/L/Cjlfl-CO JHfeA /A C 



£Aj V61 



A//C*JA-/- C&f~r*£ Ct-/OA, 









■SoS^icl 






V<A<X A «- *\ OY 



e V}&y~i 



$ 



hi 



\ w>; 



yci^ 



Li > 



^vi U<T- 



>s&^J3Lu^t', 



'£oo*f^ Ctp- 



<hrLc-Cf 



J>? ' )f) 






^V^rz^r 



SU\ 



j^^jt* 



^((.iViQV^ 



£* *> 



fc^<-»ua£>^i-^ 



l£^%r^ 



2D£l 



vc 



vi^iAS-f^^A 






"^CV^/V^ 



^L 



v 1/yy.#:> 4^^ 






#■ 



TaFX 



Li.. 



P/g ,^Tg<C 



fcv 



/vRi V 



4^Wih .^CK^r 






f}Sf)P 



&- M~ ??. 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



5/ 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



jQ& Ju^ 



&frtr/fi/0 fr&r. 



A/*/er/{*t/ &&T 



hza^k M ft^c/i 



/- <$<j . PhA£f^> i ^>£/Lj«?£. 



JUZSL/fJwZrST 







Sdu^AKwJT .*■**• cUcfc, NCKX^^KlT 



^ 



<Z&£ClLd &£&£L 









/)£?*/) /UP ft- TF/9/vs ■. 4<z?/vr~ 



AM fT Tf j&Xl 



A/y*TH(Aj£S 









btT/S&Zf/ 



M fr&Ur 




*$c 



/JotrtQcir' 













fj&B&L&j 




'or^uj^^jf 



JOfj 



? 



JZiS 



£<Pji**&st Z£*u<t* 



Mgvtr:.^xt 



&££±L 



A£X 



•i m 






Vfi7% 






/UWMw*ST 






A/"//! 




&& 






FX?F 



■ /t/ £g tSL 



-'/)~r/ j-v- 







ZLjfc 



S/Z .<^mro*j Afar 



6ltdld 



5*)- 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



:\ 



UM . lM£L 






AA fUlTCtttiCF 



COMPANY 



AA 



lS 'A (L*u~p 



'J. 






r-c-<q^. A ; ivQjrf&h-j^^L ; 



3-d- 



fofo, ^fM6{44 



^ELR pJbvtuLs*. 



, < Sf/:1/*'l,fcy fay 



s 



fvv^. 



£<L 



^r I 






teiJUJA*i \\ 



£!>££: 



r 



^ 



r'fr*-.'- 






45^ 



fefc^ 



it&AtL 






^ 



y/jt 



fin p 



DELTA 



L va vf , Xi 



T~ J 



fik 



TO 



NvEfL 



Vt^SftKin^ li)Af^ 



O— 



?*out< 



^e^J .^ 6m 1 pi v -( 



pr 



^ 



<i 



^ 



SMc, 



■^^i.<?>' 



fdnLbsJi 



vi -. iy ii. P^^vC^^r^- 



1 -n-g^. 



--^ . - - - - "S 






-2-£ 



/l/l^/l 




?ZA^/2^ 



Q £ii£*a 



-V/W 



LbLL 



j£jU* .AlX^s-^ 






<<tY* >f 



Limcta*^ 



ivTUN. 



/iW/^HrT K£iZlr&(L (JNt -rrftvMEg 



'2hkL^J^l^uAUp_ 



W2r 



^ 



y.j/y*yj 



Jl^jL 




^a 



fr 



■vCi 



A. 



1/3 <* w 



T 



Ponded Qf£u£/±. 






53 



C^a rcf v^/ 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not 

Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



K s^/ve. 



NAME 






v* ^ ' ■ y ' — — 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



M P v ,o All A. 




Calf [e . kovAj r^ejf 



1c£^>b?r7 4 



A\^:. 'v: .,Q,- : rC 



CaAqo^ 



fY)os~/ c ««j rzc wcA. 



ff- 



f1\e 






<3*3£a <S7tegUASa/? 



OietjCQtoA 



C/IC&O fcf 



MfyiCfrKjIsr 



? / 



6d£XJ £& 2k 



^■P % 



J^LtL 



I 1 



t.k^ 



d£iz 






sr 



>^ 




/^v^Av 



^L 



ftx^ 



u^ 



g g to 






to^a 



w.y^/w 



ftlQmspn /pm?s 




lUL&l '- 



w^ LLfea 



V k^i 



/^ 



U f'C4l 



u i:\p4 



&$- 



*\ /'~-'j€'/>a.*~^ 



I L T)\) 



<£«±± 



^ 



fi 



.-: //, d 



,t / ^ 



^ 



7: 



L^l 







SJ. 






sy 



PETITION 



& 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



fr//M JcA^sm. e/Ar. tfj/D/sf 5/^ /??***£ 



^k 



^Al/JitC- (£ui/ 






rJ 



^SiL 



Ui-L 



n!~f~i't- /<-/ 



/fydJjlALJ^fJfiJ,^ . ftfaff&l/. 







~^V 



f\\<lpif}j CO^tY.iiLS-O 









rt^/ss^y,;.,..; JStcatiaL 



2M&L . rr /; 



n 



s r 



2^i/r 



uL* 



f^jL/i 



r * 



frUc 






^/ 










-> 



22 3 - 1 r —^^' i££££ i 



^(ert-^nc *u 



r ,FlM 



|v7^ 



iijL 



; *> / / - -^ 



CJULL - r " c '"£■ 



/ : v»r ... /"• 






rs 



^ . >. j,: 



:?ly4- .'/A' 



4- 






'S'crr stes + _ 



/9^^-~ 



IjtzL i 



j£. 



*^( 



•ML 



u<?.\k&\j^Z 



cVWa Of* 



7>M 




, '+JLA C- > 



C /-€AjL 



// ^ y 




2ihjJ^m^ 



it^ 



rif&fi?/ii72.% i 



Jaj^?* 



^ 



■^f- 



r L c L 



/) ( w A/t$ BP 




eJ b/ • ^^^u ^-w 



!C 



^ 



^6= dj*#*. 



j^is 



/j'tV^i>-< <^L^^n-i^ t 



/~V, La • 



(*---\^- J 



t^ v 






6vO/gV-^£ 



^r_ 



k£&&£jE 



S£jJ± SA.'x ; , 






J /ad 'Y.^u 



^A>y ^ il'/^ 



_£ 



51 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



V 



e a 



COMPANY 



^ 




1/T 






Its 



Pte*£k* rLct+-L£jz^ U~$-pt&£C£. S^yui^cZc^. 






j-^Aj\A+~^. t / ~i*j3kj flfi^<pc b°ffi 



^L A^-C^cci 



<G4£4r /*../% ~*rJC 






■Sy*(- /&£. 



^t^U^b 







fVi-6-r QhjL & 



U.V f.xl^-^ 



^ ^n\v\vC^_ fc\TV,c \ cm ^ ~sJ5JJD 



rtT/s sre.v4A«„ 



d£* ££L l£££JL E&rcUL 



^•.vx/££ &/>/££* S 




"£>/\/MMtS 



jLif*uJ5xx£fo . 



&£!£. 



C=>*7c:\Nf\\ 



JMdL&LA^. 



A U&JSJJJ& 



7% Jyu*?/^ 



JLEJJl i^ii^r 



6JJL±k 



JL-D&&&L 



Pit 



L±_ 



' Zfr 



7p qZxZjl 



zM&Mh 



bXeckfl^Yr, 



U/JITTHD 



W, 



.(jj^.^f 



Ch^rt^-iK 



tk 



k4^ 



''<M*6- 



SA 



LcLl. 



-V 



7, 



^±U 



SJLUL jlULslI 






C] N/ 



.*t_ . n a . y 



°TV 



f\sSou£rz» Jjjf^ 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



y> >&£#- 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



j£# J F^/ft=*-r>->tr~CZ^ iKtievcTcti -7^-/ &±-&—k. 



>', Q^z+zzdL 







HZ$- 



5* //?r r> / y/p-*-*rs* 



^rrtfekk^p 



,? 



dtzJL &&■■■•* n £M1 



r/?C ^.yssJ^\<lr 



J&A - 



??^Sr>-rt*J*z ^7$ 



U^^C4^~ 



\&Lrfs/L. fll i?<± <L ?yi'/< 



7?->o-&*£^ /c*&r>n 



■/*'- 



\ MM^ 



££rf 



V^cyfa^p ^I<3^gj 



/v?av/V; ^ <. 



^»e/v 






B^tfL^f Aj& 



2dZ 



7?^A 



iV-1 












>M^4)fl 



o>V 



A^^ 



<£Z 



^ 



S 

w 



^T 



^w- 



J*£A_ 



kc/? ezi t f s ■ 



*^ 



\ ^aas 






/$ -tx-Ast^^. Z/u7Z £v*/e£> 



IkCsJ^I 




j*j- c&« A^T 



jAfl^) At ft JLja,*jL 



ffivj 255 *^ 



3E 



^M±M^£- 



-zfa—Gsu Q 



^c 



■^fc ^. ^^r 



^^ 



L ^ S 



j^2 



tT^L- Cl-?Q kt^XTT 



^u 



-^A. (''.cW? ^^: 



_^_ 



V *^ 



^£a^£_^JI_ 



^££^L 



J$£A CAnca s<sr. 



dm. 



frtUi 5i<l ^W 



iiJ 



4££: 



^ ^/g* ^ ^ .5^ ,<:»^> 






^7 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



_NAME 



OCCUPATION 



feffo TSAMf 




COMPANY 



ARM&4 C.AtftrO 



/Yi5wn !\\€\'tfc cthiAGJA 7'tUs 



f&rfacs] dorac 



p^>\ V^^p^su^s. 



^YTl^^^^O P^"Y W_Y^e^ C^W^-S^^ 






C V STCTu ?> fci K<g fe^_ 



^vv^O CH^RCc 






^ay'sS .£</■ 




Ci.- w 






<l. 0^7.^/hJS A- 



SL££JiU 



1 5 S 



/^. 




4ilLtU 



&A&i4£ 



A/?. tUtr-^,: 




: //x /?///^ 






M^ 



-l l^..v/,r 






iH'hQlf Ccfbc 



/J, 



A, A- 



/•- n 



A(£i~i. fu'f c Cg/i n. 



Pxk/ /Wv 



^nt 



s7./?tf. 



{(L^JUAjJI > 



JZZ&M 




A/ll-CALfl,** t^./t^/^ 



A 



W£>tr ^f\ 



i>c>Ai 






L^21 



J Ac^. 



A . V"7L" 



■ ■i-tf.l 



f7K 



LH2. 



_i/ 



~ ^ / ■ ^' /■/> 






ffwrt Ac ; t>v\t 






o> 



A/ 'Tc~ D 



CW U 



73^ 



•^--^ 



— iT h 



59 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



m &. dtdL^jZ^ m e^^^ iC - 



/J&<ZTh vOesI 



£&_ 




M+*-4 



/V"s-fA h/.aj 



4- 



<y 



te<*±~ 



UJ.-9 0-' &&£ 



^ gZ^> 



**/£€:& 



d&£Z2L&£2&£. 






/M&CJtf 



/UcMlHuez? 



/V<>=cA 



sl/a/^]^ 




mz^JLau^t 



&LkjL 



UM 



M<~/t /)**,/ r 



C£mj&&. 



+ 



MFr 



LL 



M 



Ol£Tl-\U^£L<>r 






/&t;#£<S£,yC£- 






^quA ZXtA^-c-B 



^tU^^yj 



ASusC &£u^-tJlj/^. 



=l! 





1<Z_^~jCT/L<cZ. 






§SL u )3Sk±& 






i /C- ~&t^^Dtf zzE~ 




#^ 



Jet 



A-'tJ^~ 



tfJL£S, <UML 



PosrwP/cg 



-ry^je^A, 



^2<,-t< 



'7e&~^£. 



A 



KUr^JfZ 






rf rt wt ^ 



C'-/ f c,-.^.r^»/'<s' 



/* ' Qtv77/^es*>4^/7 



WiZiL MMl 



,\jJLl Liu 

4J 



HLjJL QjU M 



1 1 



i i 



Vk 



Wli 



m-L 






; w/^ Cfict-tfAvk. 






E Lf--HU.'K 



t>3 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



tit nf\h kyqlL £iC&> -Df&J&xt*. 




S-7//1 



y ***>& g>j2~s * 



S^/Jj 



IIjZISl 



<r £V 4 



4* 



IT' 



/t*fr <, 



21 



S/=s4 



1,/f ft* 



££>*£ 



L£a£. 






Hv-'Slkri 



Eh 



Mr 




^fifl 



M 



'.<.<-* 



J^fft 



SfrJ. rftsZr. 



&&UJb£ £ '/>, 






.i '---.■■- •■, 



(k&ki $££(££& u^mcAac 



&£AB 






it. 



4- 



T£ 



5JLZJEL 



•fsjtisr'td! tfc<+&L^- - 



/%*< 



F/4 



$££* 



ijfl&mi 



££l£ 



fa&fc^ /MM?- 




UXJ^Zdd LT/+ 



S-r/A 






£&< <£ 



T- 



STf/'fi 



^z« 



£j£=SXl 






o^p 



S/f/T< 



S /^/a ^?^>>vr 



/It*"/-*. 



<X//ute/£ 



S>,f/A. /?7ci/sis\ 






5f<0 /rU<«?~~ 



Zri/* /7^.;- 



So/ZQ/SV''' 1 



H^E 



£$ 



UvMfncw/s 






^Tih^ <&bz_ ^s 7 ' 



QO 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




<*2>t^ 



'■^f-Vr 



X£x& 



'222f- 



~7 



&*£&!££&£*£ -t^^psr.r?^ <;?':/? 



[Ot 



cA Qr ;? 



fb^r Ufr *j C 



STi & 



-77 



2^ 



v;x as* ^c 



gyU&fru 




UMaL 






V^^ fr t. 



/. 



t^v-^ts 



Z?c^.&<*^ 



\jh 




*J<?£T -^cK 



jU±. 



±£ 



k\ W 



:v.-^,rw>. 



a am s-^ a: 






d,i,!C^, u ^ Sg 






iSE 






/4/>- 32^7] cwAstcT? <=>/i—j 






1 i 



i/i+h * L rtj* 



^7 



jJuX-JS+sJ*4 



xA 



iaaa^ /^fe/^/p 



-^g*V 



^■^ 222 



*irs?/& 






TcTT 



g/7srp coc&tn 



<o 



y^ 



// ■ /•->• 



\*VV<V 



^ ' srJx--^' .j^.s^J 




!s ^ /c ^ 



«^S 



,9ft # 



t2£L4&3te#/Cll 



mmmi 



mM. MUstteh 



J2u±£Z 



G& iJe, y\ & fc -^"fc,^ ^5 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



<!l 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



F5 i=>7 3 • Ch^o Bvn ft? ey i ex 



T, 



COMPANY 



TL^^~ 



ki 



\\ ~^>-^ - 



^7/g/f y/Vt^^A/ /Crtrt/ 7 JfrC \t,i£fc 



4£ 



-er-R. r/bu a 



Uf A 



-Zjtrj± 



K_; OsU- 



At/- y5I 



V^Av<-ldll)lL^ 



'. Wi A., 



/^i^aiMJl^ 



T['/ £ 






£U 



\ Vi 



&£. 



^ 



"' 7 , ■ 



teZrsi 






\ >/v r jJ-*y 



■ .At' 



^ 



^A 






£5E 



"/W/q 



.' E- Arf PJ t'k fij 



J - 







m ^L 



T v v ,9 



£S£ 



7 a. •/- 






/^HD-«^ 



rne*-l- 



4 



y~»-' 



fcgjfcf;. 7^'f 7 



u^i 



-0- 



a7) . .^vmW-i. 






XT-f^ 



££. 



5 



XJJUS. 




A 




y&n, 



451 



r^p 










?/>.*- 






• t \)/ t 4 



re^ 
,/y^ 



ZZ5 



PETITION V* ■* 



'*~ y & 



^ , ? 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME OCCUPATION COMPANY 

/. &**:**£} A. AM - , T^'A 

13 - ;?£ ,. 4_, -??s."# A'<?«X ~.t - 7. tl ■ 

^ M^.fc ftp T^a 



tt 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,^'^ s ^ aTc: 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




jcjgHSs \ic,UA%iCC 



'^IL&>^(\&vJ>ZkJU^ 



(LhLz. 



KkiAp 



PA/O — 



CA-BX* q 



^fry^//^ 



fcHriblAW 



MfiCHftoMC. 



AMfMt^ft?n^fJ 



Q r y \ r trti[&\)£lfii 



}\WJb( 1 fMUif< 



, C cj\o^^>~olr> L-aT v^* «-> j 



Wtt, - fjPiM% 



li 



O^-^o 



%>} 



&~/Ac 



&1L. 



1\r&* 



Ccc'vtr^ 




-'•ryvr 



OS.j.t*^ ft/xk-oy ^\ 



/>\ C^y^A 






]£M£ -fatrf 




Stxtt v>v.o^^ *& 1- 



t v 



FT 



A, 



hfcT^ ,C7&-f **> *. 



U'rCf^ /cA^r 



/ j^o — IMs 






/~J^ 






LrSr^N?, - ^ A_ 



£ 



^.-fogWu 



-to. 



Safi^ 



jQgatt±& 



Y 



I ■ I ri — > if g I . ■ » 






Z: 



J^ftu 7/r Vri,.*7t 







PETITION 



fr 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. , 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, A^C^TA S C/4/e 

« 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 

3 $3h£Js L 



OCCUPATION 



A\<2. Rg'chi 



COMPANY 



UK- 



%. %\\\:hki 




4 



Ul£iC 



to 



mil 






M2 



\i&yf*&K- 



^r 



s/ 



£ -^.{z.^ I ' 



) W^,-fr*fe 



j£pf£ 



\AJU-o<-. 



w 




Air Kel4& 



o^h 



f 



C^ 



^Z 



ffc 



^ 



afjz . 



a**s 



f?^* 



>K1 




A& Gj± i *> 



-4-a G 



4>- ^ 



£ 



£2«_ 



/f^ /i/l&cJfi/wii 



M tk£&L&. 









22 



V] S> >s 




PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,/VoCTA b <2>4T£Rlu»3 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed , 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



■» ,-- 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



AS/M& 




9v — >> 



WaxVaviiG 



kA 



A^ 



\*nA. ^i I ,ia_, r\.\J 






>e.'-4&(*^JoftleZCZ~ 



± 



Z2 



^A 



mm, 



fry^s/-*-' V* 2&£*±£g !t 



£u ^vft- h: 



c <^t^>t«a_ 



C2J£t£sJk£&. ~rf&t*s£ 



JLA 




a // 



~WT 7 ^F 



j> 



,4<A< 



"cyi ^ 



Ayi> 



M 



•Q-frHAiir 



7//.t,U-\ CJ>iAA 



U^*cL_ 



MAlLHWDLBt. 







??l(^A 



k&23 £ < 



■ I/., 



fo~£^*4? 






fl^/CfyUs^ 



o>Ul...JL 



WL&4P± 



^U^r Zktt ljt £>"*?*■ 



^tfZ&ljyJtttF^ 



LjlS^-^j 



P/V z-^*^ 




^^> 



3 



^i 5 










m aaaa 






MecKlvii/'. 



±El 



UJ J jZ i 







L,**>U 



u 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. t 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, A^CSTA s O+T&RtNiQ 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed . 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



////?.'u* 



Lj^-Cj 



COMPANY 



£££ 



'dc LCrirXfA^u** 



fs^^V 



%&at-gs£&&£z 



&Jk£Z&££& Deef- 



A r 



J&ZL 



•*•*. 



& 








IMUML 






/,( v/.- r - '&a. r-s/- 



Kfrti ^~^q c ^ l _ J 



L--SJ---J> 



mn. 



tl& 




At 



K\&- 



Mt fkzh 



H<?c^ 



-Ml ir 



U.^.^^si £ * jltcj 



^v^, 






Q£UUL&± 



ST 4 1 SE/lis/t^ 




ItefiH** 
















-ra.v/^ kfl^gfi 



fa/t~~&?£ 



A r- 



Gvl&txl S Zfc] ^ oc 



vf 



PETITION 



Ci 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, ACO^A CAT^N^ 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



'•"'VMImX ^\Jp^-> 



OCCUPATION 



H$U ?Vw H4 M>C 



COMPANY 



Lot- 



fi.£,f~J 



A^-J^^ £a4s?lp 




LUZ 




/^^ --^?-^ i C n~C/<tf/^' 






S&e. 



^s/>& 



A??jfr&*7 &f&j <Ts fQli /n.ifr. rjFStZ 



CSi ^eeVi'r^ V /^^V ft-JriY ./ 






Mt4JiA 







i^v 



y^^T 







a 



ciurc\ v <ys 



8) 






s 



w 



c 







« 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respeetfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, A Ci -^ rA i ( - 47 ^ jnGt 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



^rfStark-) 



OCCUPATION 



Driiyar 



COMPANY 



Ms 




PETITION 



11 



y/ 



We the undersigned' state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. - 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, ACC-^ 7 ^^ CL4j ^ 1 ^ 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




^S^g" ^W^TO «U^ 



<LL(3^U^ 



7uZ 



f th w 6fe V7 t'^fb 




i 



*k*^/* 



r&zz 



10~T ( 



DHL 



J2C 



k&i 



Eu£L 



?r 




fifrtiou'i 



M, 



Zk-cA 



d-l.\ 



A 




Mstn (j», fytvua 



- ,.> rt r>w — \u> i iiiyu.v 



^ 



4&L* 



PETITION 



1c 



We the undersigned state: We do net understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,yA^C^TA 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



S C--W-/T5S.I «3 



NAME 
_ 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




A 



L\ ; .A 



2 




£l& &±oJ. 



aawu9 



*£± 






rflrfc/// ££2 



UA^ 






-^^i-J^l 'pyiJ fattfr fli/P-^ 



-rupr 



&krl*.l< 



St^ ?MM± 



£um 



&nf 






tisi / /f^/£*f/>srS> 9 



JMr^/ou^ /Xfrt^itcr' 



'M^pUjl 



^^f 



IMa^u 



/V?^>?y^~ 



JTUl 



\aM 



St a<&3 



pi \ i^L. 



ft«\^6-Q*V£fi V* 



Li A U 



/flc^ /fy^^/a- 



j^jMii 



V 



M£ c *± 



M±- 



(UJJL 



ty/tift^ Ai'jo/ 



/*a&{l^ 






/frgjft /VM~ 



* 



Jj/f^yh'^pr 



y\<.\&c\*£.A — 



gnfc gS>; 



r 



Pr^tP- 



&\TA 



£&. 



rc< 



,&r-Q £gu 



6 ^ tt '■■ V 



v^V'V^T? 



M^m^^v 




OirivW 



^L- 



^%7 



iZ±Li 



A 



<7 



Av'/ t.v. Cz> 



P^fl-r 




^Z 



ddi 



a^Sffi 



i 



ft/k/. 




PETITION 



1i 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, /&&TA 3 Off Ex* W 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



Z%&/#) fJtjit£t*J c$r/]T,£// /V££ / 



ucdas 



■£. 



j^^AfL^, QajA c f «? ti *_ -Z, 



<L lp j r^itt4 



&y<J 



m 



£ 






m 



*>? i 



i£ Z<d 



MO^/ 



a^,o f-lov-es 



Avii 



7&N. 7 &U*y_ 






p6U^^^ 



\J^^ J&A.IJL. 



3 



iiL2±* 



ty± 



6^J^ 



n 






'/,-e )^n 



r/->^-_* jj^Q 



*£. 




A^ s Hfsftrctfw^ 



A >/' £ 



I XrJn 



trilrt 



/OyJ> ' ^ Q;rp A 4 ( C CO; 



ij^LL^L 






C.lii- 



r$ <u g/g^ -/~ <^a*jrAr~c 



fn.\,jyr ^,M"T fir 



-Cjjv 



- Vr f £}~*Jzm - 




iAL 



M 






i'S 



m 






^/W>9%gw- 



/a 






' W WCN/1 / 






(//fc 



"Py4^ c 7 ^<£c 



fl£4 






iAAL 




H&K&LlA 



U S Aifi 



J&rts^QfbT^ 



a(T ^ ^r^ 



4i#i 



/ /2/CtTh ' %sv£< 



.A/dvc. 



K\m'^w 






Z^iA 




jS5r ^\F, 



4^ 



eai^kiajua 



urr>.rirv\ 



n 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. , 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, ACC£TAJ»CATErW 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed • 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



yn^T-L*, — i cm<?> ^p ll^juj 



P/TU. S^A 



<-£&£££ 



£f\ r*.^ RJlf/n/i <V^W, 



W££ 




JM 






fl^jLtUS^t CLtfUL-t UtjAjCttJ QiaJU^A 



a 



Wr^^t^t 




OlA. 



£f£- 



TZgZS^ 



Ae 



Ml 



^^ 









d/E. 



*¥f WW* 



*/{Af\^tf?<M 



rpmji Qj/tt£y. 



c i£t /; 




IdJCL 



W&/&1,/ 



$0L 



} £MqL 



nytfl- 



/uirtC 



ft A* 



& 



SZ 






&*x 



k£3 



k££ 




/)a;x> 



£k / ~g 



t^a 



*. Zte> /c,j ^f 



A SI J ^eoL _ 



jpS ftll^ 



r 




PETITION 



7S 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. / .- 
We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, ACC&Tb^^ MC- Nfcjf 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed • 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



URu£ MrfTt*^ /lutz: A&oeth 6fyorty ffrtfctiT System 






4i i /u ed.L 















f_ I^Jzl Z"^ 






*7n/?,£J/s?*\V&g^ 



WE; 



Kdileft 



Qzfa fantfe) 



'.&4-V MA*j*terf& Gzog^*" ?£E£2£Jl< ^ 






Mm& sssuiiE. 



T- te-J 




U^Z-J. /■>* ytj 



ft. 



£s03fcU 



'A 



£L 




JXje^ 0&&1&. 



2 <£&&. 



£&&& /?£„■* Odk 



32 



V/f/ftL 



O EM 



v v 4 /v.Srv^L 




<;v 



cm 



W>WHA» 



tr[ » TL~ 



hmi£ £= 



h<A pcxf < ^tk< 



to Wirt 



PjgymjL '*-<P#zr^ 



*3K 






& 



L*> —-,Ss^,~, 



' &£ %f>AM 



Whlf*~ 



C^ftfc CL44U 



K~/i/i. 




)yj£ C*V> L.//W& 



*\ 



7r 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheel s^^V/*** 2 ^™^ 
D & ft Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME . 




OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 




Aj *a q 



-r**<> A/Ai<.frttf^ 




lid 



i 



^a 



t±Z£aJ 



k/CIU^j 



Qtf&f Z&nJT 



AV 



>r^ 



M^\ 



■Ps c<^ e 



MjL 



SB: 



OPtMT/fithfiG&JT 



ifrt &xU 



mjL 




G&zL 



>>r^H^\-Vy 



nps /It**? 



8i^ 



pgJU3gg, 



c rr^ 






h 



rioe-r 



-S^l 




£zl&: 



LsflgfaiJ'** 






fiLti* ~£hv±!± 



±±Sjl^ 



J. 7,J , 2jCO^/^ry//ji 



'g^uj- 



Vj2&zz_ 



^ISS 




7&3& 



/T^r^y- ^ejsr/c* 



An 






fu^TSvpvUce 






Gou^ac 



mm — m a rr\ ~* mmrtfcgBBM a^wna MlMMBSIH^^ 



* .. 



PETITION 






75 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, Ju/vS dcuQfirtQ 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



■OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



£M££ UoL/v\£j /\AE<?tf 



fa* 



4/V 






£d^ 



3^ 



hU_ 



R&yrish&zs 



1 S5j£ 



D^>^ 



^_ 






ft 



<ZrcueAT r^ 



SEES 



ftou J)^UfA 



AiftlW &WH SfeMfCfr'A 



iferfctLbajeg, 



jM&cAd <5\£&rA5 



LAuaF 



fr mEMTrafyMpeA 



% 







$fai<rr oxi 



tzjclx/ \3Pwge 



T^-nvmrj^L 









MrR 



/^O? 



EA&£ 



^^X^& 



CJvrfjhvj iy^rh. 



A^ 



]>/h/gy 



m±L. 



zsfe 



IftytA, 



/^>xiv /£U*V*L 



2 







sx&c& />zr/6c 



£&o?%* /Vl 



0^ Louj 



*TI^ p+t¥i**y 






u*& 



CM J^TlfhrC^ 




<5£J?l(IC(r 






'\K£-Qp£zfbfL 



TpAM2£&£i 



Ttc^jbr (~Ani T^oC 



tljz£kU2>LL 



■reV 






-i-Jj-JJtedictea^ 






saeaafaM .•mi>' << ^- m ' j " 



PETITION 



7^ 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commiss ion's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, JU*v? CaiQr/rHj 
D &'M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



6.0>v\as)-C. £<v\ek.Osv^s 



Pc/f-Kx. / 



ffro - 4AA./T 



fejfc/ luff' sm MM£ 





&AS7PRAJ 









£1 






B^E- 




aiaB 



1X.<^ 



t£_ 



/ce, 



/lAgC(f- 



U^'^h 






atOjjtAr. 



UaI±sJMi=LL*±L 




^EZM 



^RHEiO 



-Tftl/j/vu o 









3/^d> A//^_ 




3E 



c/ ^v 7 6' 






^ 



^ ,i>. lAi rt 



l<b*~ 



7&*L*£s^e£L 



u;hct 




f 



r S 



fiu/fvS /?#**</ 



£u*/OS 



Dni/><r 



bPrT 



.jRjyJjSL^. 



•7T7/T/V 



&E&&&MEER 












£7t^y- 



^y ^ 



*■ 



£^a 




^4^ 






3BE 



Wto 



^^//^rv 



fyj£&L$ 



crttu/ ^Ws&S 



8££d&C£^ m 



hf^^ ^lMwvl- 



C j T W i~» o £ /Z^v? 



3«£, 



<XJC~ G&U/to,J 



/y^chi - 



kfltjfcg cJeri 



PETITION 



71 



y 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. ( 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,J uH5 Catering 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



jfu 



rs£_r>^j Q -— <? 



( A^fo YWU 



COMPANY 



AA 






\\x\riAA 



£&&£& A-^T 







fitJ^K) 




ftn^vagT td£CJ& 



TlTP- 



£ 



% 









>"5 



dVcrJL 



AJL 






m^, piAiA/Q/ef 



LlsM 






?T ryir 



's>Z*OAyr£ 







Seciuiry Quit/} 



/9}/£ ^e^r /? Q2£ 



Aam£ ofe/tAf iQV-> 



llS_a_lIL 



fcg-X-fty£> ft^C^CH-c) 



j^amP /\e*£*>r 



< bO^T\\LX>65^ 4fr^- 









SflUrMj^gSrfb g£> 



c;.4c 



ij^cA 




ia 



(!0jCt^nJs«^t<! a I 



/V2/c 



^ZT 



SeCCg/Pj £??*Ce^ 



&/£Af^ 



5T& Ti'QhJ C K7^Gi \jZtf. MrX('C4(AK tot* 



<33&sL 



Cj>en2fFrZori 



^^L_ /+! ^J/*7 \ 



( +/s J^^Jr 



j&g£ 




. ty/M/su ttpPki/.* 



MamaaanaciaafciBSBi i^j '^ixZttit 



PETITION 



7K 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,J^HS CaiWH^ 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 







4^ 




ctS^jJewz. 



'tf^LMSU-s 



V^C-NA-y^C^ 



gf^ 



Ql 



£^ 



UYvys\^\^J^^p. 



i^oc\a3<~&~ U<v\ 






'*,//<.•->*" 



\J^<2^ 



-r 



£orJ 7 , /+jE>jrsH_ 






Ge>/cf Coa^V~ Couriers 



OVXTt^O fcr\? 



Meztf* *7 1 



£~4$r£#4 Al/Z,L(+/,£S 









CtTl ^ 



A//&'&£r3z£i//c?. 



rf>MD (PETPN/ftg-- 



~Te~UeiCEK. 






'f&'mA i r/-&>v«<?K 



Cf?teo g&v> 



jMh r^tinick! 



ZtedimL 



~^aP€/?Sl?jrT/p 






Ptftuf? 



Hl'trKS /)/Z&Z£fG«7 



jy hJ^-^\ 



/? (A (2&*s£±^l T* 



<<WA > v 




cA/ei,o AUaTT 3>X- /AAA , 



H 



t~ Ac^iu^cx 



r 



4 sy/ilfl 



rn^Jh 



A*s ' g, 



u A I 



j#/L c/&tfVc<2S 



Cr/^C^ 



77?fii?,<££ 



j22££jl*2iL c 



JZ- 



7?eL-i 



&£. 









BTiaaPiawamffi^^ataBi^ ^ 



11 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. , 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,Ju*S CaUhmq 
D &' M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 




El£JtL 2l*lmjl 



COMPANY 



/ML 




fULlM^l 



f&iQ 






t e^ 



fcJkjt/j, &m-m^-c^=r> 



CA<?fr!fi1- 



A.fSI 



^£&L 0- ?{*** 



Z css^ g xn^< 



\f-fH « 



AJitutTVtetJK^ 



C, 



<r. 



jjjSJ£2 



f ffi. / 



>i££\pfa XPrYhrS^ 



dA-i 



Ri4 VJL* 



FZggg 



osrs 



HftjL HAmD/pR 



UCP5 



T*/£0Z*£ 



££C 



A^A 



ML 












US AtC 



h 




i^o-gjgg K /J?-e*^&*c> 



*2* o V.r ; a^i 



r^- 



SZypwrC-y (&*£$&■ &'c<^~. 



Cj/7i4/s>>*/7 



<L tuUL 



( / * / > <S 



r*J &U.K- VA&.1 <> % vU 'i^ N' 



MiKLU 



L/PkU 



T 



m 



r^fcU 



OAl 



o'-u u gs 



>4u< 3> 



. I^C^' jfcJWc? y ^M/^i 






Pj*A 



^2=1 



/V^of 



g7 ^/Ji^T 



■^^/U^/-/( 



&&&L 



<a* 



t/ty%2_ 








&fefl S^*+4£. 



^Lfi^l/C^: 



ftdtAnC 



2*J4 1 C 



'/I I 



A-h 






^ 



^■4,1 riMv" 



Hh- 



_at^j±±^_ 



^, ;] Au^uf/~ 



^^^^■'^"^^^^^^•^^■fca^^^^ 



PETITION 



^0 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,J^** Wfrr^j 
D X M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



£U^« m^-H"^ 



OCCUPATION 



ess. 



COMPANY 



QBJL&i 



y-^yrc CKx^fft^ 



/W-Q 1 '^ AidUN^T 



£SL 



I ■ 6frCT P<W^ 



S\A(Yuen 



tx[&?c0, (KroOecnc^ 



$_■ Sotw^J 



&n£l(nq OA)0£-gpo-Q 



\C'v 1\,3(j- 



4. 



<^-^dUA^\e-lcJ 






<A 



^ v o e vcJ 



y^s^ 



3: 



TuEuE^. 



A^ce?-kc^0. IV^ui- 



; ^ ( 




a /)e> litems 



I C^rV 



dbt 



a<n 



£l 



H QjJMJ {&&%&&> Da i 1 ^ r 






AUti'V^^Cs r- 



?-LOlAg ^Vk Pfrgi c,hp~ 



^,r^/ *2hx£u£ 






v^ 



". 3\-*r>fecti, 






r.<- /<a/_^ 



toiy roju^ 



SFJAJ.D 



1 



<^ AAA 



e 



Dt/1 gJX 



Zrswi^ 



z 



^.'WKST^ 






/^ta 



^03— 






*A>\VU- 






j3l 



.fijrjc 



&L^C£ 



.& 



V/i/^g 



5^SS ^fe£ZZ£L 



S S a E s ZZ 



rSfreSa s\/a .r 



JCl 



oi&ss 



csSf <T 



rn, -vyr 



,L \J( yV 



.<7*<x* sT^^ 



J2cul 



^hza^m Ar 



-»*r 



Qm (l 



AM 



J /^//f 



.K^M^^ftP Qjrt-L. 



fh)AJ CM-M/^/<L 



?osr^- sw<> 



FKvM Sqv4, 



^Tofl g J- ^£f ^ 



)<?s*-\ 






UOfiREHfiL&g' 



77C 



V-hA 



w_ 



- KprV^ 



Kk^KL 



44^ 



B&i»SgBMa«8itfMMgiSa5ttgJ^^ 



V 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that K itchen -on -Wheels, Jun S O^ttrnn^ 
D b M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



x<£ 




ski 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



RlXCM^R)\/[ 



^Ofc 



3ft£G u\\vn 




COG 




Sg/WL <U££K 



/hr?ePjMt) .A>e.Uri& 



s£j^f> 



AJiOA 



)qtj A£w\StR*&^^ 



^Q^^^Sl/C' 



"\ 



N(,,A- 



x& -^^a£\ )0^c£- utuB^uc^ 



^cCTj'^Z AOWQiO 



faf iRnhscfj 






j-^uc £ Qj-f /;-**- 



&lt f //i~*Z/Q £J 



ruiA-N/ 1 



gui&liLh 



v 



'Af/' /)*u 



/^J#&< 



/?/&*#*-< 



^W /£*?? 



fwULerf l/m&C^rrL. 



t-/AT£ SEa-\/) c e~r^c >4 . 



/<c/7~l^/Z ^■U'y* : 7~7c=>*J 



f^^Uj/^i^^i 



ij g } &£z 



*1 Sf*<~{K«) *4 



'-&/£ O-fl usMfi eA 6^t\ 



&££JL 



/4y?(3/^/C/>A, /*s'/lL/A-?5 






c_v>-^r ^?>^a,Vxs*^*s 






y/- y jt4 






s 






«a*u 



sum. — (- *> . ^-vvi 

^5 



C&A^ 



: p n zr'<rx?~<>-ss 




u 



5 







<-f- 



*n 



;&^>/ w\\j\s 











^zS 



a 



rtJJ~>/7^ 




i ^vV-rV 



J^ 



Te<U 



Ra^^v L&g2^ ■ 









r?^ A^U. 



fit 



r t K' 



i^T^ 



e/ Stcrtf-k 






JZUt &L 



m 



£&&& 



s 



^ 



VZ. s — 7*77* 



</ 



% 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, dUh/'s CfiT£/?/NQ- 
D &, M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME OCCUPATION COMPANY 



12 Oh 'Hot/? QUIi/E/Z ^.iR pl-esU- D-oc/cj^g 






?J 



PETITION 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,^^ C/PT£~^ / /V G~ 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



{JQss^t/ 9~£<-i~rT~) Llk0US'/r>(Z ?x.f</t?<. 



tvc £J>JU JtV, i fjfl./\ oMJWvJfrU 



/Lfcfc^/z^rfeO L-/A-ao'f > /«j- ls - 




'•IMu^ '^>ti^^^ 



7fl.\\<&- 



ArV'OC, tx&i? c ii^O' 



Licit/ /£f££ 




fttjexi/iSoA 



UP 

n 



£££. SlLsltkA 






I JA-JOJA j 



Rf\M P <frO\C6 r 






rcfe^-, 



8\z 









g£fc*P '.C^£jy/C€- 



VJ 0/11 



}-) vbli Ei i 



CDKTiO^Jp.^ 



cntc EIZEMI 



. Ve^U & UZ3lvPZ\h> ° htf tvL<^^ P££j/± At(cc</)7E D ^jjdl 



-^VH) ^Urn I I tamp Gou 






tO l'P"\ 



X-%U ~Tc 



U^VO'M QUZJLc 




Dafi/£x-na: 



rs 



P&L&Z -T2&& 



Bd 



i/e.< 



fea /iJ-r Zjszjsffa 



D£JI/£X_ 



S.T.A. 






vWJ^ 



i KA 



iy^x 



PETITION 



? 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. , 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, JVNS C#T£RlNCr 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 






M<e/:tnf»(C 



A.fi gjg&d&k 



ra 



*<L 



/faJL^djtfA, 



tA/* 



-tUA>?HdU*. 



'J^i^e* (L&t, 







r^sr&tH 



I 



£2L 



u7& 



;7^L mC£j WSPS 









7~<e* w4 £<»J-, 



a 






& 



£_ y$V/C 




fiirfjL^ 



/>3 



Mj^£J£jf^L £ 






fY\E_C(jArJ, C C 



•1**-/ 



y& 



iXfjLi C 



L^dZ/ ZE fl 



Zi^aSS/XMeS- IMj&gk 



ttX. 



^-/* ,'.■/* 



/■ 



'4*7 <S 



. &■/?** <y</pv & 



^^.as-> £t>^0~,jf'Q^ /s\r 7"- 



-%t\\& 



^ 



fl)£3oz7 tTXi£c 



jJjHTg 



iPAnyJr/L 



J ^f!J)S}j 






J^uA 



J*./2 



72. *£1 \t£ 



Vfflh 



/Lai C'/ //j.^Jt^ 



rMUiifMDlLf< 



USPS 



'^jLtdL-J^L 



~S*ri>3^ 



i •,!,,/ t-m 



^ ^zfg^Z 



/k*?^ 



tyteudtUtiTAdl 






_ ^3v/g£^52w^£^ 






"7L.Hie.4~ toco/ ef 



b^ b&H& B 



3V0 sm: 



^dSIS3l 



fajJJMXJtrfl££. 



■-•.ifii^.sa^iv-cli 



MjaBag&s a^Saaaa^gaiiiS 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, \iUNS CflJERlNCr 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 




OCCUPATION 



U^pl^Hi- 



COMPANY 










/?;< *0 hre. 'cl^rm '■). ■ c<s ~Tn nffer 






Q-y 



iZ^MMkYTk.CiH^Jl' 



Ls±M±£l 



Dft£ lW&>7 



VeoF> 



gy^ S/s. 



Po^f* ft^Ci- PfrLWtf/S/ 1 



AJlOft 



cSs &*£**£ 



^P, D - 'NAS-U'm.^KL 



<?V^-*«6s. 



k J 






*'C 



U/«^</ d *. /L^ 



Ra^h \2Xr7''>) 



A-&~-A 






jyfi i /> a 



B A P. r ^ 




C * 1 ts IS 



gosj: nA"/r 



AtRcp&FT >*fcA//^, 



'GAL- 



UOA 



fl/f 7?'«:k H# 



SO/?/UizK- 



££T££steL*Z£& 



' r, 






\ -■(. 'J. >-ih I ' 



A± 



P&f?A*J<Xt-Q(Ct 



t^J-C 



1 K\C SH^ffl/W 



<2tfM& 



\-WnV=y\\ ^Q oC _\-\- 



- Reo .fe-gxfa. 



■fSf 



l^c\<f)^^ 



asx 



g,W Sfl&fc 



tifii&g&i 



3^ 




S.\t>or~^ 






fW^^cV 



1 

:13fe 






r-5^ 



_4i« 



'ar a ?s* 5!t *^' g *^^»^^'»'-^' ii *^ 



% 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, dl/NS CATERING 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 






A 



c* 




~7<'£i--*c?? Ct f.&n-^t 




w 



fcZ-liz'o C^aCccT' 



CA-sr&K." 



~~ o sV- 



j4,^\ Crr vj >J 



g-A ^ C *-■ t-v-^\ ^^ j^js ^ 



O fO \ 



^)/U'-t: *) 



AAiJ] LL 



<ji±<i-. 



l<-^ llzrfrckjUi 



5Z 7 



7^ 



VtLTA- 



nf t & fi 



n~J clML^ 



" y^T^S £^&£/oc 



6 ^ 



0{sis*-<£ 



'tftpi McQJTu- 



r c^S 



tif<4 



-^ 



/-H^- 



Ws£f£&it-& 



-*"' 



- / 



£^7i: 



ppN»fii r^i^soi'L 



Rfirp sifc'J'ci- 



VNrr?D 



fcvjfjj VbrkiUZu . 



^W'-y.JUb'.i /<:'•' i CJt 



/A 



!(14)\l , 



L'2* 



I f 



Zt^^T^i^ 






csA 



Co^J l /AJtT/TfiL ft <fj l ///a; 



£ 



( «-o 



^a^, ? ,1s so c 



zT 



<l*nfif 



AJL 



fo-tp 



AJOO 



Sf* 



vc- L 



H ^ S 



AJ^ 



£E& fcmtr/s 






QHE££ 



frneLf^,&'/>>/t 






/?*/!/£* 









vu&cc 



■Ws^'frT*-- 



Vfl 



-^ Cvi^S 



frVvNj*. 



j^r,V-lj 






Q4- 



v/f 



/ 



A^/7 A/t*^ 



P£JV£A 



KC 3YP 



- fflAjft 6<Q>A<rfl 



h<?>vee. 



TKJT.CfcvfftulC 



i Txrv*~ a*** aawMtiaaca r^ M £^^-nr±amfi***txi:*L^~''*^^i«^**s&iK*&^^ rag>faEy5s»»*?^u^^^^v^^ 



PETITI 



«1 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on-Wheels,*/^^ C#3E£IN<t 
D &' M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



3' lihU r 



1 (jenJj^JL^o 



CMtn A<,uJ-~ 



g£bjg| -(m\i^^( 



^5 



}^n 



\^'S fr~r^'>-~ ;s? 



£lsA 



Pis LLq 



^ 



~< ? g -' 



W/ 3&r7& 



JfSA- 



2j£. 



c^AZCfe z:ulx?ki£- 



M<^?</C4*UA 



. &<&//< ,<*/ 



/>'%?***- 



^3^Z2^A 



^ 



^fjfe 



/->Aii^ — r?-Oi 




:fe^^ 



<^~r 






tffjtiCTiL LC£r> 






?> i^W, 



&2&£mM/&il 



WCc/fWC 



c/ t 



tf /ret 






A^gC ^^a.C- 



CtnA'J 












Li k,;. A 



HftrUttA^ 



r\i/UX, <& £/tm & C-iTT? 



klgA&i ArU 







Wj 



i.* ^i^*fT .^ --*-u— ». jn,-.u.^j^i-^ i,v«n aa aaiaia 



Bj*r,i ^»iw3y>s«fe^.^3Byjiai;^ji 



tt 



* . PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, dUNS C-ftTB^ihlQr 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 






WM (//<< O&feimt. 






c<7 A/<£ /n£yc*ATrL. 






f.l-fU-t-. 



OmsnJiK 



*/.L,'t*st<\ 




^tfMMM M\M& 



7~1 



5£H%^6 



6&isrflS ^t&/M&t/ftl 



Ji?eTtJc4<J/l'< l '"^ s 



m 




Pn£jUA£r tft&MU/c_ 






<fonrk 7/u f/kSor 



f/kJi 



v^ 



^o.^ rJ 






K^-q-\-7\M I C 






*-^W < A/-^T 



pai 



X 






(^tcvc 



*Sg>^AA-t^ 



i^OOVflOff 



' i^-CK/ L ■ ft ^<*ldnr \\jr- 



grop^^A^r 



Q.CL'bF 



' y i 51 < * * /r>f • j I /o 



CT^jj.u lnj~tv<* )< cK 



i£ 



l<^(3 / / a j 



>t 



Hf^t V-"-P< 



; ;iut vl^va^fe ^^^^jj^^S 






'. G-lruSfhlfc 



Heo/ici^ic 



v^.^^c^r^ 



M 



%Z?*i£e biff;* 



<.A~jc/r 



(j. &,~- 



>/sQ> 



dSE^ 



4flL^ 



« 



n> f-y £jL£jll&*£. 



W ^ m 



7 a n- U 



IVT4. 



,/foCAim 



Ml 



hf'i 



.->>/*• 






aJ 7, £ Mj^</ 4 



iS'S-/>.A. 



jyU\ IkaAiJjUf 



j. iJufhv)^ 5/h^JL 




£LL 






g £l(£<M\ m 



_^> 



»-. J c=«^^^«^ij.ii.2«.«jM«rca^iMig^^ 



*? 



1 PETITION • - 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels,<M/£ Cfi T£ fclNQ- 
D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 
to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



7 



A VP> /JET) K3 



OCCUPATION 



COMPANY 



uJ^U 



^u*.~Z 



j ve ifo 



61A-C 



£AMP 



HAL- 






OcO 



dLL 



t\Mc& 



ULfru 



tCisT} 




U- 



UAS^ 



(fa'rt 



VSPZ 



P" 



"Yvjl^oK 



.^Wv \-a-< ^JL.^yr- ^ux 



**?*%& 



Jg&hzZ* 



'*SZ- 



7 ^fyjUj* a I— 



S^-UfflT^fl-A/gL, 



//A 



JPZ 




-AD.hJJh 



LjL 



ULUX JlA 



U2J* 



A\<L& 



fiawp tStk&mk 




WM^& 



&£ 



Ls^_^X 




C'-ar^p H^rvilw^ 




is-fl 



coirf** i<t/irtw&> 



>/£j&fZ- 



T< 









-^ t/W . \ 



CcrST 



_ -Ufrk y "o~» 



pA*Pk6&' 












Co 
c 






Ui via gjj f W i 
TiT i\ . ItH / 



..^^^^T^^i-^^-^^H-t^fi^ ^^ ^^a- ^ -^jr^^ 



PETITION 



1<> 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



j/h/e 




OCCUPATION 



VXj 



COMPANY 



^^<^^c^^ 



u£L 



f^^T^p-z^^e^^^^^ 



x^^rz 



7h?[aj& "fisSzESi 



-jyLUjcJL tfLw^Qsu 






xJl 



r£xT 



HE:£l 



/>rj- f a &dcz c 



fx f-r : 










/!^{/& z 



%k fi^co. 



£>Ji 



Fh=r f 



^Wyi 



// 




'P'.S/pOL'JCtn ^nuj^ 



/$+jL A;r Fr- 



MlM& 



<±+£ 






&&JL 



a s d 












,?v <r 



PETITION 



H»".'> 



'2 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

DiH Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



ll 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



8, R De^Ko 

fo- fc.sVW, f 5 ' 
ti- 
lt- $%&*/< 



RAP 



/'■■ 

ftp 

flip 
o. p 



COMPANY 

7v- ■ 

-j-v*-' rV 



/. 



///; 



7k"d 
ftofi- 






PETITION 



^V > 



^ 



2 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 

I. *! ■ l/ilulm 



OCCUPATION 



%\\ Co 



« rvV S 



8. »R D£mk 














U Ci (< 
ASP 



u VVA 



COMPANY 



l\— 



\ J 



a r 



7v. ■•■ 

TuJ A 
"J-vaJ rV 

"7 ^ - 



PETITION 






l V 



We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



2 



OCCUPATION 




NAME 

'l> 4>*taJ»4UiA.H*dkL& 

8. ft D£mK 

(o- £.s" 



2. Mr V V 3\l^^V 



/HP. 
Of 



COMPANY 

•j-vA-' rV 






PETITION 



{JW 



^< 






•i- \ 






We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D 4 M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



I' Ge/MfULn A . W *}tl /-- 



^«*F: K5.P 



fo- ?..SV^ : 






ft e<^°-*;c 

iesP 

£sp 



COMPANY 



A 



/<-// 






PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen -on -Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



93 



NAME 



OCCUPATION 



V\c*mJ &vy^W <MfcJ^~ 



COMPANY 





COfd'Cv&^Atde. 



#2Z 



fay /jQzje.&i 



&22E ,. 



/g> ST4 c <g>7/^ <~f£.£ 



^M^b 



// 



f 



// 







// 



Po c rAi c-npurttk 



<£/v, 



S*rO 



PETITION 

We the undersigned state: We do not understand the 
Airport Commission's decision to remove the catering 

trucks from their present locations and to revoke 
their permits, as their services are greatly needed. 

We respectfully request that Kitchen-on-Wheels, 

D & M Catering, and the other permittees be allowed 

to continue business in their same locations. 



n 




ftvM 



OCCUPATION 



tAflcU.'Mi^ 



COMPANY 






nM* ■ tyP 



Em 



t Ajr9>H. u. * 



i±B± 



±t& 



H 



■■' I- i (. 



Osb 




/K4<rv/A'( s-f 



UA.l_ 



ttt fro d a&EL 



Ujj 



MncUnv-T 



UAU 



^g^*^r 



j&2&i4&*z£ z£ 



^r^t 



'' *<p^ /?&&. 



<fZ>-ttL<*e£ t ~. 



/ r 



^ts? 



* //> 



■//, 






// 



o&£&Zl$£ 






U 



<vt/t 



SL 



g^^ s 



H.efc.j^i n >c PM, 



Zi 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JUL 2 8 1988 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARV 



JUNE 21, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

June 21 , 1988 



CALENDAR 


AGENDA 




SECTION 


ITEM 


TITLE 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
May 17, 1988 



88-0099 



D. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Resolution of Appreciation for 
Donald 3. Garibaldi 

Boarding Area 'E' Sublease 
Protest 



3-4 
4-5 



POLICY: 

Support of AB4201 



88-0100 



POLICY: 

Establishment of Bureau of 
Property Management 



5-0101 



G. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Adoption of Fiscal Year 1988/89 
Rates & Charges 

Award of Contract No. 1560: 
Reconstruct Airfield Perimeter 
Dike - North Side 

Airport Improvement Program 
(A. I. P. No. 9) 



88-0102 



88-0103 



6 

6-7 

7 



CONSEN T CALENDAR o F ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

6. Retirement Resolution: 
Robert Bracco 

7. Retiiement Resolution: 
Aige erta F. Wiley 



88-0104 
88-0105 



8. Retirement Resolution: 

John Cuenl las 88-0106 

9. Settlement of Construction 

Claims 88-0107 

10. Bid Call : Contract No. 2044: 
International & North Terminal 
Underground Tank Replacement 88-0108 

11. Approval of Shuttle Bus Service 
Agreement No. 68252 - Modification 

No. 5 88-0109 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

12. Proposed Public Parking Rate 

Increase 8 



J. NEW BUSINESS: 8 

K. CORRESPONDENCE: 8 

L. CLOSED SESSION: 3 



M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes, June 21 . 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 21 , 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
8:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Don Richards Stephens arrived at 9:15 
AM 



CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 8:03 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:00 AM. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 17, 1988 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0099 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell presented Airports General Counsel Donald J. 
Garibaldi with a resolution, introduced by Assemblyman John Burton and 
unanir- -ly adopted by the State Assembly, commemorating his 30 years of 
distingu shed service in the City Attorney's Office. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked, at Commissioner Goosby's request, that a 
similar resolution be prepared by staff and adopted at the next Commission 
meeting . 



Mi notes. June 21 , 1988, Page 3 



Commissioner Fleishell requested that the contents of the State Assembly 
resolution be made a part of the minutes. See attached. 



Commissioner Bernstein granted Mr. Briant Chun-Hoon's request to address 
the Commission on Boarding Area 'E'. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon told the Commission that his complaint was about the 
approval of the Duty Free Shoppers Boarding Area 'E' MBW/WBE subcontract. 
He told the Commission that he was a serious MBE applicant for the 
subcontract and he was not notified of the Commission's meeting and agenda 
of June 7, 1988 when the Commission approved the subcontract. He claimed 
that Duty Free Stoppers selection of the subcontractor showed racial bias 
and that his allegation was based on close examination of political events 
surrounding the execution of the project and actual selection process as 
well as the MBE applicant awarded the subcontract. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon said that he has consulted legal counsel on this matter and 
he believes that his complaint and documentation have legal merit. He 
asked that the Airports Commission call upon the Human Rights Commission 
to act as an impartial third party to investigate his complaints. Should 
HRC corroborate his complaint he said that he would request that the 
Airports Commission consider reversing its approval of the subcontract 
until he can negotiate an equitable settlement with the parties involved. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon told the Commission that this subcontract was offered to any 
qualified MBE/WBE. He contended that Duty Free Shoppers intended to and 
did give preference to black MBEs/WBEs. He said that the basis for his 
complaint was threefold: Political bias, i.e. this subcontract was 
conceived from the settlement between Duty Free Shoppers and the parties 
which brought discrimination charges against them. The second point is 
that the selection process could not have produced an impartially chosen 
qualified applicant. Specifically, after applicants had completed only 
one questionaire and had only one interview the subcontractor was chosen 
by a single Duty Free official. He said that Duty Free did not request 
any verifications nor were any references contacted. Mr. Chun-Hoon also 
told the Commission that a business plan was not required, no income tax 
returns were requested, there were no written evaluations by the 
interviewer and the selection process phases were untimely and unclear. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon's final point was that an investigation of the past events 
surrounding the MBE awarded this subcontract would reveal that the 
application for this project was not coincidental. He said that this was 
the second time around for this MBE firm at the Airport. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon concluded by saying that he hoped that the Airports 
Commission would evaluate his complaint and act on it as soon as possible. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Garibaldi if the Commission should 
comment on Mr. Chun-Hoon's statements. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that in light of the fact that Mr. Chun-Hoon has 
contacted legal counsel and possibly contemplating legal action he 
recommended that it be left to the staff to deal with at this point. He 
said that Mr. Chun-Hoon has direct access to the Human Rights Commission 
if he wis' to ta^e the matte*- up with them. This is not a matter in 
which the Cc mission can become involved. He said that the Commission's 
only role is to approve or disapprove a subtenant. 

Commissioner Fleishell remarked that a number of Mr. Chun-Hoon's 
statements were inaccurate and he did not want to see him move ahead and 
spend a lot of money needlessly. 

Minutes, June 21 , 1988, Page 4 



Mr. Garibaldi agreed that there were a number of misstatements. 

Commissioner Fleishell told Mr. Chun-Hoon that since this contract was 
awarded to Duty Free Shoppers with no requirement for minority 
participation, Duty Free Shoppers could chose anyone they wanted. The 
only participation the Airports Commission had under the agreement was to 
consent to the new sublessee; it had no involvement in the actual 
selection process. He told Mr. Chun-Hoon that if he had any quarrell it 
was with the Human Rights Commission for not notifying him, although he 
was not certain that HRC had that responsibility either. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon asked how Duty Free could discriminate or show preference 
towards a particular group if the offering was made to MBEs/WBEs at 
large. How can Duty Free give preference or show bias when the entire 
concept of the MBE/WBE prog'am is to get away from discrimination. 

Commissioner Fleishell recommended that Mr. Chun-Hoon follow his 
attorney's advice. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, commented that with the Boarding Area 
'E' contract the Commission attempted to follow what has been a 
traditional effort on the part of the Airport, i.e. to establish a goal 
for minority participation. Since HRC did not permit that concept with 
this contract the bid went out without any requirement for minority 
participation. Therefore, this contract went out as a standard Airport 
bid for which Duty Free was the successful bidder. He said that as a 
business matter, Duty Free's election to secure a subtenant is within 
their business right. The Airport's Commission, as is standard in all of 
its obligations, reserves the right of approval but cannot unreasonably 
withhold its approval in these matters. He wanted to assure the public 
that this was not the principal concessionaire concept traditionally used 
at the Airport. He told Mr. Chun-Hoon that if his legal counsel wished to 
discuss this matter with him or Mr. Garibaldi they would be happy to share 
this information with him. 

Mr. Chun-Hoon concluded by saying that it should be stated on the offering 
circular as such. 



POLICY: 

Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted. 

1 . Support of AB4201 

No. 88-0100 Resolution urging support of AB4201 . 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this resolution supports AB4201 
or any successor resolution that may arise. It specifically speaks 
to stress induced workers compensation claims filed because of 
personnel actions, i.e. job evaluations, disciplinary actions, 
demotions, etc. His recommendation is clearly stated in the 
resolution and he asked the Commission for its support. 

Commissi^ ■ Fleishell said that merely sending resolutions to the 
State legi'. .ature i a r e i v accomplished anything other than fattening 
the bill file. He said that a letter should be directed to the 
appropriate Mayor's Office employee requesting that contact be made 
with the City's lobbyist in Sacramento on this issue. Further, the 
Airport should be notified of any pending action on the bill prio*' to 
the hearing, not after. 

Minute.. June 21 , 1988, Page 5 



F. POLICY: 



Item No. 2 was unanimously adopted. Although not present for discussion 
of this item. Commissioner Stephens arrived at the call of the vote and 
did participate in the action. 

2. Establishment of Bureau of Property Management 

No. 88-0101 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this is a policy issue. He said 
that property management was a fairly non-existent function at 
airports prior to 1979. The Airports Commission has, in great 
measure, pioneered the concept of property development and retail 
concession development at airports. This concept is not confined to 
retail and cuts across all lines at the Airport. He felt that since 
it is a much broader discipline it should be afforded the proper 
importance at the Airport and be positioned to cut across all of the 
organizational lines. He urged the Commission's approval. 

Commissioner Flei shell hoped that the search encompassed everyone who 
is qualified. 

Commissioner Stephens joined the meeting at this point and was asked 
by Commissioner Flei she 1 1 if he had any objection to the establish- 
ment of a Bureau of Property Management. 

Commissioner Stephens responded that he did not think so. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Items 3 and 4 were unanimously adopted. Item No. 5 was removed from the 
calendar. 

3. Adoption of Fiscal Year 1988/89 Rates & Charges 

No. 88-0102 Resolution authorizing the establish- 

ment of (1) terminal rental rates, and 
(2) commercial and general aviation 
landing fee rates for Fiscal Year 
1988/89 and beyond. Resolution also 
authorizes a $6,000,000 supplemental 
appropriation from unappropriated 
surplus to the operating fund, as 
required by the Lease and Use 
Agreement . 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that having been reviewed by the 
airlines the rates and charges were brought before the Commission at 
the last meeting in the form of a public hearing. He reminded the 
Commission thi' there was no public comment at the public hearing. 
He recommended ipproval of tho item. 



Award of Contract No. 1560 

Reconstruct Airfield Perimeter Dike - North Side 

Minutes, June 21 , 1988. Page 6 



No. 88-0103 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1560 

to Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. 
in the amount of $494,025.00. 



5. Airport Improvement Program (A.I. P. No. 9) 

Resolution approving Project 
Application for A. I. P. Fund of 
$26 . 9-mi 1 1 ion and requesting the Board 
of Supervisors to authorize filing of 
Project Application and acceptance of 
the resulting grant offer. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
Items 6 through 11 were unanimously adopted. 

6. Retirement Resolution: Robert Bracco 
No. 88-0104 

7. Retirement Resolution: Algeretta F. Hi ley 
No. 88-0105 

8. Retirement Resolution: John Cuenllas 
No. 88-0106 

9. Settlement of Construction Claims 
No. 88-0107 

10. Bid Call : Contract No. 2044 

International and North Terminal Underground Tank Replacement 

No. 88-0108 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 2044 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



1 1 . Approval of Shut . Bus Service Agreement No. 682 5^ 
Modification No. 5 

No. 88-0109 



Minutes, June 21 , 1988, Page 7 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was convened at 9:17 AM and was declared closed at 9:20 
AM, there being no public comment. 

12. Proposed Public Parking Rate Increase 

Hearing regarding proposed increase in 
public parking rates in the garage and 
Lot 'D'. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director, Business and Finance, reminded 
the Commission that the Airport has been encouraged to develop 
further concession revenue for the benefit of the Airport as well as 
for the benefit of the City. The first of these is ar increase in 
parking rates. She told the Commission that parking rates have not 
increased in approximately three years. She said that the daily 
garage rate was lowered to $11 a couple of years ago and was asking 
that the daily rate be increased to $13 along with an accompanying 
rate increase from $7 to $8 in the long term lot. She said that 
since the rate for the first two hours in the garage will not go up 
she did not feel that this will have any significant impact on road- 
way congestion, i.e. patrons who normally use the garage for short 
periods of time will continue to do so. After looking at rates for 
downtown City and private garages staff feels that these rates will 
sti 1 1 be reasonable. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked from what amount was it reduced to $11. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was reduced from $12. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item will be brought back to the Commission 
for approval at the next meeting. 

Commissioner Fleishell recommended tying the Airport's rates to 
whatever rates the Mayor's Office decides to put on the downtown 
garages. 

Mr. Turpen thought Commissioner Fleishell 's idea had merit and said 
that staff would take a look at it and possibly incorporate it into 
the resolution. 



J. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



K. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



Minutes. June 21 , 1988, Page 8 



M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM to go into closed session. 



'Jaan Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, June 21 , 1988, Page 9 



failuttmt 



By the Honorable John Burton 
Sixteenth Assembly District; Relative to commending 



DON GARIBALDI 



WHEREAS, Don Garibaldi is celebrating 30 years of continuous service in the City 
Attorney's office in the City and County of San Francisco, and, in recognition of this 
milestone, he is deserving of special honors and highest commendations; and 

WHEREAS, A native of San Francisco, Mr. Garibaldi was raised in North Beach, 
graduated from Saint Ignatius High School, earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in English cum 
laude from the University of San Francisco, and his Juris Doctorate degree from its law 
school; and 

WHEREAS, Following his graduation from law school, he served his country in the 
United States as a yeoman in the Pacific Fleet, later served in the office of the commander in 
San Diego, and, after his active service, joined the Law Office of Joseph L. Alioto; and 

WHEREAS, In 1958, he began his career with the City Attorney's Office in the City and 
County of San Francisco as a Deputy City Attorney, and, in 1962, he was assigned to the 
Council of the Retirement Board; and 

WHEREAS, In 1969, his office was relocated from City Hall, thus it became one of the 
first satellite offices of the City Attorne), and, in 1978, he was named Airports General 
Counsel; and 

WHEREAS, As a youth, Mr. Garibaldi was a member of The Salesian Boys Club, which as 
an adult he has served as a 25-year member of the board of directors; and 

WHEREAS, Don Garibaldi's outstanding abilities and effective public service have earned 
for him the high esteem of his peers and the public alike, and it is appropriate that his 
impressive record of achievements be acknowledged and applauded; now, therefore, be il 

RESOLVED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOHN BURTON, That he takes great pleasure in 
congratulating Dor Garibaldi for his 30 years of continuous service in the City Attorney's 
Office in the Cil> and County of San Francisco, commends, his distinguished and faithful 
service to the people of San Francisco, and conveys to him best wishes for continued success 
in the future; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That a suitably prepared copy of this resolution be transmitted to Don 
Garibaldi. 




Members Resolution No. 1322 
Dated: June 8, 1988 
Signed 



Ycr^^< X /^L^^5^ ^ 



Honorable John Burton 
16th AssembU District 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

AUG 2 91383 
SaN kkancisco 

M « <«• in • IRRAPV 



JULY 19, 19 88 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



cf the v : nLte; 
A : "ports Commi ssion 

July 19, 1983 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 4 

B. ROLL CALL: 4 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meetings of 

June 7, 1988 and, 88-0113 

June 21 , 1988 88-0114 4 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 4 

E. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1. Commendation f cr Donald J. 
Garibaldi , Esq. for 30 Years 
of Legal Service to the City 

and County of San Francisco 88-0115 5 

F. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Status Report on the Proposed 
Extension of BART to .San 
Francisco International 

Airport 5-5 

G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 6 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

3. Public Parking Rate Increase 88-0116 6 

4. Authorization to Conduct a 
Pre-Bid Conference for 

California Products Shop 88-C117 6 

5. Authorization to Conduct a 
Pre -5 i J Conference for Nortn 
Terminal "Hub" Princioal 
Concession Lease for Retail 

Merchandising Sales 88-C118 6-7 



6. Resolution Approving North 

Terminal "Hub" Sublease 83-0119 7 

7. Airport Improvement Prcg r am 

(A. I. P.) No. 9 88-0120 7 

8. DHL Application/Recommendation 

for Variance 88-0121 7-8 

9. Publication of Ten-Year Airport 

Commemorative Repor: 8-10 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRARIVE MATTERS: 

10. Retirement Resolution: 

Benjamin E. Binkley 88-0122 10 

11. Resolution Setting Maximum Fees 
for Feasibility Consultant 

Services 88-0123 10 

12. Resolution Authorizing Assignment 
of South Terminal Flower Snop 

Sublease 88-0124 10 

13. Awa j of Professional Services 
Agreement: Preparation of Computer- 
Generated Diag-am and Fault 
Analysis of AirDort Electrical 
Distribution System to United 

Engineering Technology, Inc. 88-0125 10 

14. Award of Contract No. 2043: 
Removal and Disposal of Material 

Adjacent to Taxiway 'L' 88-0126 10 

15. Award o f Contract No. 2023A-R: 
Traffic Barriers - Two Airport 

Guard Shelters 88-0127 11 

16. Bid Call : Contract No. 1665 - 
Boarding Area 'B', Pier F-F - 
Installation of 10-Inch Water- 
Main " 11 

17. Bid Call - Contract No. 988: 
Remodel Engineering Building and 
Heating, Ventilating, and Air 

Conditioning System 88-0123 11 

18. Travel/Training - FY 1988/89 88-0128 11-12 



J. PUBLIC HEARING: 

19. Increase in Vale 1 : Parking Rates 12 

K. NEW BUSINESS: 12 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 2 



L. 



CORRESPONDED 



N. 



nD;Cl = v.<EN T TO GO INTC 
CLOSED SESSION: 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 3 



M i n c t e s 
C f the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

July 19, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco. Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present 

Absent: 



J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougaraki s 
Don Richards Stephens 

Morris Bernstein, President 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of the 
Commission Vice President. 



No. 88-0113 
No. 88-0114 



June 7, 19. 
June 21,1 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0110 regarding the settlement of a 
litigated claim; 88-0111, modification 
no. 2 to professional services agree- 
ment with Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, 
Vlahos and Rudy to increase compensa- 
tion payable by $200,000; and 88-0112, 
authorizing Director to execute agree- 
ment with the law firm of Arnelle and 
Hastie at a cost not to exceed 
$100,000 at the closed session of Jjne 
21, 1988. 



Minutes, July 19, 1 



Page 4 



SPECIAL ITEM: 

Ite~ '.;. i was unanimously adcctec. 

i. Cor r -r":at ; o' 1 for Donald J. Garibaldi. Es; 



Se''.i:e tc the C "■ t ■» anc County of San Francisco 

No. 88-0115 

Commissioner F 1 e i she 1 1 said that Mr. Garibaldi has worked with ea:~ 
member of the Commission and from his perspective it has always bee- 
a pleasure to do business with him. Commissioner F 1 ei she 1 1 aske: 
that the resolution be framed appropriately and presented to Mr. 
Garibaldi . 



F. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Status Report on the Proposed Extension of BART to San Francisco 
Internationa 1 Airport 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that this item 
was in response to a request that staff chronicle the history and 
background surrounding this issue as well as some of the pros ar; 
cons which relate to the various views being expressed, i.e. a toest 
of Bayshore alternative ve"sus a terminal alternative for BART. He 
said "tnat staff will continue to monitor this situation and keep the 
Commi ssion updated . 

Commissioner Fleishell said tnat he hoped the monitoring included an 
active participation in any of the decisions being made on locations. 

Comrr,i ssioner Goosby commented that the report mentioned tunneling 
under filled land and asked if that procedure might not put some of 
the buildings and construction in the Airport in jeopardy. He asked 
if tne team of engineers and soil experts who must have provided the 
original recommendation for a projected tunnel entry into the Airport 
considered this possibility. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Building and Construction, 
said that the conclusion was that it would be possible but rather 
expensive and that is why a trace was left for future tunneling. 

Commissioner Goosby said tnat in other words it was seen as an 
expense but no mention to potential damage to the buildings was made. 

Mr. Yuen responded that if enough money is spent to do the tunnel 
right the building would not be damaged and that is why the potential 
for a tunnel was created. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that when the piles for the garage 
we-e drilled water seeped through, resulting in the lower level 

roadway dropping eight inches. 

Mr. Turpen agree H f ^ 3 t this was just a matter of time and mone\ . 

Commissioner Tsougaakis assumed tnat the $300-million difference was 

to shore up the area in order to build the tunnel. 

Mr. Turpen sa<d that staff will actively participate with anv 
decision-making bodj, and he will forward to the Comirissior. a list of 



Minutes. July 19, 1988, Page 5 



organizations that ~ ; :'-t be currer.tlv involved rfith : Hi s issue. 

Commissioner Gocscj, as>e: where tne tracks will be bui : t. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the west side of the West of Bayshore 
property is being considered. 

Comni ssioner- Goosb) thought that SP ' s tracks were further west. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Southern Pacific's tracks swing down a Ton 
the westerly boundary of the Airport's 180 acres and then go intc 
Mi 1 1 brae and on down the Peninsula. He said that they actually run 
about two blocks east of El Camino as they come through Mi librae. 



G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



ITEMS RELATING TC ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS 8- MAINTENANCE: 

Items 3 through 8 were unanimously adopted by the Commission. No acticr 
was taken on item no. 9. 

3. Public Parking Rate Incease 

No. 88-0116 Resolution regarding proposed increase 

in Public Parking Rates in the Garage 
and Lot D. 



4. Authorization to Conduct a P^e-Bi d Conference for Califc-nia Product' 
Shop 

No. 88-0117 



5. Authorization to Conduct A Pre-Bid Conference for North Terminal 
"Hub" Principal Concession Lease for Retail Merchandising Sales 

Mr. Turpen said that the jewelry shop will be replaced with a sports 
shop. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he hoped staff was strengthening our 
sublease language so that when a subtenant gets into financial 
difficulty action is take" immediately rather than waiting until it 
becomes a crisis. He said that minority concessionaires are not 
being helped by allowing them to slip deeper and deeper into debt. 

jmmi ssioner Stephens a ed who p-eparis the Airport's commercial 
leases . 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport General Counsel and property 
management staff prepare them. 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 6 



Commissioner Stephens sa ; d tnat commercial leases ana their terms 
chance dramatically all of the time a~c staff should think abC'jt 
hiring a law firm with a strong real estate department, like Morrison 
and Foerster, to review our leases, he said that the law firm should 
provide us with the state of the art in lease clauses and tenant pays 

Mr. Turpen agreed with Commissioner Stephens. 



Resolution Approving North Terminal "Hub" Sublease 

No. 88-0119 Resolution approving the sublease of 

the Newsstand in the North Terminal 
"Hub" Principal Concession to Donnette 
Stafford, a Small Minority Business 
Enterpri se. 



Airport Imrpovement Program (A.I.P.^ No. 9 

No. 88-0120 Resolution approving Project 

Application for A. I. P. fund of 
$9 . 2-mi 1 1 i on and requesting the Board 
of Supervisors to authorize filing of 
Project Application anc acceptance of 
the resulting grant offer. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this is the third request for 
Airport Improvement Funds since the hearing on the Q707 was initiated 



DHL Application/Recommendation for Variance 

No. 88-0121 This item transmits to the Airports 

Commission a Variance Application from 
DHL seeking relief from the 25% of 
Airlines' operation being required to 
be in Stage 3 aircraft as of January 
1, 1989. Item recommends that an 
independent hearing officer be 
appointed to consider application. 

Mr. Turpen said that consistent with the Commission's new noise 
regulation adopted in January, the Commission has the authority to 
appoint a hearing officer to hear requests for variance applications. 
He suggested that the Commission elect this option for DHL's request. 
This will allow the Airport and the petitioner to present their cases 
before an independent party. He advised the Commission that 
Northwest Airlines has submitted a request for a partial variance as 
wel 1 . 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the hearing officer's opinion was 
binding or merely advisory. 

"' T urpen responded that the hearing officer's decision will be 
bi ng. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the hearing officer would be chosen from 
a panel . 

Mr. Garibaidi responded that he is in consultation with the American 
Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 7 



Arbitration Association and they have informed him that they c?." 
provide a hearing officer capable of handling this type of case. He 
sa ; c that the idea is to hire one heating officer so staff won't have 
to dea 1 with eaucati-g more than one person on this subject. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this procedure has been used before. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the only other hearing the Commission has 
held was for Burlington/Northern. He expects that there will be a 
number of other requests and recommended this approach. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the noise ordinance allows the Airport 
to determine whether a hearing officer is to be hired or if the issue 
is to be handled in-house. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the ordinance provides the Airport with the 
opportunity to handle it either way. 

Mr. Garibaldi added that the hearing officer's finding will be 
presented to the Commission for a decision. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Timothy Tracy, representing the 
Board of Supervisor's Airport Noise Committee, if he wished to speak. 




Mr. Mike Kirby, DHL Airways, said that his company has expanded upon 
their initial application and argument for the variance. They are 
not able to comment on it at this time but would request that they be 
allowed to make both verbal and written responses to any questions 
the hearing officer should have. 

Mr. Turpen said that this hearing will be noticed within the next 
week or two and probably will not be scheduled before August 20. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if there was an appeal process. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that the decision could be appealed in court. 



No action was taken on Item No. 9. 

Publication of Ten-Year Airport Commemorative Report 

Resolution authorizing the publication 
of a ten-year airport commemorative 
report and awarding design and 
publication contract to N Graphic. 

Mr. Turpen said that it was suggested by members of the Commission 
tha f e<r>»:e the $6C0-million modernization and replacement program has 
been leted a commeTorati ve report be prepared. He saic' that the 
projec was relatively minor to begin with but has assumed signifi- 
cant proportions. He recommended not authorizing the $96,000 
expenditure and either terminating the effort, or, continuing in a 
modified framework. In the latter alternative the budget would be 
reduced significantly and the printing would be given to the 
purchaser. He said that this would increase the amount of time 

Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 8 



needed to produce the report and reduce it to a design contract. He 
told the Commission that this money nas not yet been expended. 

Commissioner Stephens asked how the report would be used. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport has undergone a significant 
change since 1979, both physically and economically. Concessions 
have become a major part of our business since 1978-1979. The intent 
was to demonstrate the Commission's accomplishments in concert with 
the staff and put it out as an informational offering to various 
agencies, both within the City and the Airport community. 

Commissioner Stephens felt it was a good idea and a very inexpensive 
way to promote such a large enterprise. He thought that $96,000 was 
not a large sum for something like this. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that there were then three alternatives: to 
approve the expenditure and move ahead as planned, to proceed with 
the design contract and go to the Purchaser for printing, or, to 
terminate the effort. 

Commissioner Stephens said that if Mr. Turpen believes it to be a 
good idea staff should move ahead. He thought that the surrounding 
communities ought to know what the Airport is doing, its problems and 
how they've been addressed, and that it's not a drain on the City but 
rather a revenue generator. He felt that if the project is to move 
ahead it should be done right or not at all, and that in a business 
this size $100,000 should not be a consideration. He told the 
Commission that the Bank of San Francisco is only five to ten percent 
the size of the Airport and is spending almost this much for a 
similar report. He said that this is the only way to achieve any 
kind of recognition. 

Commissioner Stephens suggested presenting the Commission with a 
draft of the general layout and letting the Commission decide its 
use. He said that the Commission can always abandon the project at 
that point if they don't like it. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked when the Airport would be issuing 
bonds again as that was one of the suggested uses. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it would be at least another year. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the commemorative report would be 
valuable for that effort. 

Mr. Turpen said that he would return with a layout so that the 
Commission can better determine the next step. He agreed that there 
was some merit to the report as an educational tool. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked for a distribution list. He said that 

unlike a bank looking for depositors the Airport does not have to 

advertise for planes to land at SF0. All we are doing is informing 
the public of the good job that has been done. 

Commissioner Stephens agreed with Commissioner Fleishell but added 
that the Airport is going to be issuing bonds in the near future and 
report^ 1 " this will help sell the bond package. He said that a 
Bechtel a ort architect recently explained to him some of the long 
term problems SF0 will be faced with in the next ten years. He felt 
that one of the ways to address those problems is to be able to talk 
about what has been done in the past. 

Mr. Turpen agreed with Commissioner Stephens. 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 9 



Commissioner Stephens said that Mr. Turpen should not hesitate to 
list potentially controversial issues in the report. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 10 through 15 and 17 were unanimously adopted. Item No. 16 was 
removed from calendar and Item No. 18 was unanimously adopted as amended 

10. Retirement Resolution: Benjamin E. Binkley 

No. 88-0122 



1 1 . Resolution Setting Maximum Fees for Feasibility Consultant Services 

No. 88-0123 Resolution setting maximum fees on 

Feasibility Consultant Contract for 
next bond issue and interim services. 



Resolution Authorizing Assignment of South Terminal Flowe t- Shop 
Sublease 

No. 88-0124 Resolution authorizing assignment of 

South Terminal Principal Concession 
sublease from La Floresta to Heller 
Roberts, Inc. 



1 3. Award of Professional Services Agreement: 

Preparation of Computer-Generated Diagram and Fault Analysis of 
Airport Electrical Distribution System to United Engineering 
Technology, Inc. 

No. 88-0125 The purpose of this contract is to 

create a computerized record for the 
entire electrical distribution system 
at the Airport. The consultant will 
inventory all existing power cables, 
stations and load centers, perform 
technical analysis, prepare the soft- 
ware and manuals, turn them over to 
the City, and train Airport personnel 
in their use. The contract will be 
awarded as a set-aside project for WEE 
professional firms in accordance with 
Human Rights Commission's guideline. 
Contract Cost: $200,000. 



1 4 . A ward of Airi i_ . Contract Mo. 2043 : 

Removal and Dsposal of Material Adjacent to Taxiwoy 'L' 

No. 88-0126 Resolution awarding Contract No. 2043 

to Covey Trucking Co., in the amount 
of $120", 490.00. 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 10 



15. Awa'd of Confact Nc. 2C23--R : 

Tra r *~: Barrie-s - Twc Assort Guard She^ers 

No. 88-0127 Resolution awarding Contract 2023A-R 

to Millard Tong Construction Co., Inc. 
in the amount of $314,552.00 



Item No. 16 was removed from the calendar. 



16, 



Bid 


Call 


- Contract 


No. 


1665: 


Boat 


"di ng 


Area 'B' P 


ier 


F-F 


Instal lat 


ion of 10- 


Inch 


Watermai n 



Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for Contract No. 1665 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



17. Bid Call - Contract No. 988: 

Remodel Engineering Building and Heating, Ventilating, and Air- 
Conditioning System 

No 88-0127 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget, and schedule for Contract No. 
988 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



Item No. 18 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

18. Travel /Training - Fiscal Year 1988/89 

No. 88-0129 Resolution authorizing Airport 

representatives to attend conferences 
and seminars in Fiscal Year 1988/89. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he did not feel that the Commission 
could justify sending employees to Adelaide, Australia, Aukland, New 
Zealand and Singapore. He said that he has never seen a list as long 
as this. 

Mr. Turpen said that at one time staff would place a travel item on 
calendar every time an employee had to travel. He said that the 
Commission suggested that a list of potential trips be submitted at 
the beginning of each fiscal year fully recognizing that only a 
fraction of those trips are rarely attended. He said that this 
procedure has worked out well in the past as it has saved a lot of 
admi ni strati ve work. 

Commssioner Stephens said that sending an employee to Wang Telecommun- 
ications Training in Los Angeles would be a line-item but sending an 
employee to Singapore, Auckland and Adelaide in a one-year period is 
something else an3 *n and a budget item and justification should 
appear next to t. ? trips 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he attended a conference several 
years ago as a member of the Commission and he thought it was a waste 
of time. 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 11 



Commissioner Stephens said that he has had the same experience 
with banking conferences. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis recognized the administrative hang-uts 
ana suggested submitting travel requests on a quarterly basis. 

Mr. Turpen responded that an employee can't even be sent to Los 
Angeles without first going through an exhaustive approval 
process. He said that staff will return to the Commission for 
final ratification on any international travel. 

Commissioner Fleishell agreed with Mr. Turpen's recommendation. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how this list will compare with what has 
been spent in previous years. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport rfill spend less this year on 
travel than in any previous year. In fact, the Airport has been 
spending progressively less for the last five or six years. 

Commissioner Goosby asked which of these conferences commissioners 
typical ly attend. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it is the AOCI conference scheduled to 
be held in Seattle from September 11-16, 1988. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that this item will be approved with 
the exception of international travel. 



The public hearing was opened at 9:32 AM and closed at 9:34 AM, 
there being no requests to speak from the public. 

PUBLIC HEARING: 

19. Increase in Valet Parking Rates 

Mr. Turpen said that this is part of the overall revenue package 
submitted to the Mayor's Office at the request of the Commission 

Commissioner Fleishell said that if these new rates are approved 
he would like a six-month analysis to see whether revenue went 
down or up. 



NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



L. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 12 



M. 



ADJOURNMEN' TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION 



There being ^d further calendared business before the Commissic r the 
meeting adjo^'nea at 9:34 AM to go into closed session. 




Jean Caramatti 
/ommission Secretary 



Minutes, July 19, 1988, Page 13 



2 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEP" 

SEP 2 6 1388 

SAW run £ 



MINUTES 



AUGUST 22, 1988 
SPECIAL MEETING 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

OR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

o* the M-nutes 

A1 rports Commi ssior 

August 22, 1988 
Special Meeting 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 
B. 
C. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 
July 19, 1988 



RESOLUTION 

NUMBER 



PAGE 



-0133-A 



SPECIAL ITEM: 



Retirement Resolution: 



Albert K. Hong 



J-0133 



4-5 



F. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORT: 

Report on "Ground Access to 
San Francisco International 
Airport", Prepared by Deakin 
Harvey, Skabardonis - Oral 
Report 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Childcare Center/Student Intern 
Program 



H. 



POLICY: 

Policy Statement Prohibiting AIDS - 
Related Discrimination 88-0134 



6-7 



I. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

4. Selection of Financial Advisor 

5. Increase in Valet Parking Rates 88-0135 

6. Option Approval and Rental Rate 
Modification of Lease with Butler 
Aviation - Sar Francisco, Inc. 88-0136 

7. Contract Modification to Profess - 
ional Seiv'ces Agreement with 

Deakin, Harve_y, Skabardonis 88-0137 



7 
7 

7-8 



8. Big Ca 1 1 - Contract No. 2065: 

A-rpc-t Beacon 88-0138 

9. Authorization to Accepts Bids 
for the South Terminal Cigarette 
Vending Lease 88-0139 

10. Award of Contract 1559A: 



12. 



13. 



Repair and Reconstruction of 

Taxi ways 'G'and 'H' and Runway 

1R at Taxiway 'F' 88-0140 

11. Award of Contract No. 1464: 



Boarding Area 'B' Apron 

Extension 88-0141 



5-0142 



Close 


-Out 


of 


Cont 


ract 


No 


1792: 


Recor 


JS Library, 


Engi neeri ng 


Build 
Close 


inq 
Out 


of 


Cont 


ract 


No 


1557: 


Extension 


of 


Taxi 


way 


M' 


and 



Overlay of Taxiway 'F' 88-0143 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

14. Retirement Resolution : 

Edward J. Lanzilla 88-0144 9 

1 5. Retirement Resolution : 

Patrick McLaughlin 88-0131 10 

16. Authorization to Distribute 
Working Paper 'B' of the 

Airport's Master Plan 88-0145 10 

17. Declaration of Emergency - 
Contract No. 2089: Emergency 
Electrical Cable Failure Feeder 
12AM-1 (BETNEEN PD-A538 AND STA. 

'AM 1 ) 88-0146 10 

18. Bid Call - Contract No. 1946: 
International Terminal Carpet 

Replacement 88-0147 10 

19. Bid Call - Contract No. 1665: 
Boarding Area 'B' Pier F-F 
Instal lation of 10-Inch 

Hatermain 88-0148 11 

20. Award of Professional Services 
Contract for Contract No. 1739 : 
Evaluation and Improvements of 
Security Systems to Hardy and 

Associates, Inc. 88-0149 11 

21 . Award of Professional Services 
Contract for Contract No. 1985: 
Internationa' Terminal Plenum 
Space Improvement 88-0150 11 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 2 



22. Award c* Contract 1553: 





Taxiwav 'L' E<te n s^c to Runway 






11 


23. 


Award cf Contract No. 2046: 
Runway 28R/28L Pavement Groovinq 
and Repair 


88- 


-0151 


11 


24. 


Rejection of Al 1 Bids: Hair 
Salon Lease 






12-14 


25. 


Re.iect All Bids - Contract No. 
1944: West Underpass - Rehabili- 
tation of Drainage Pump Station 


88- 


-0152 


11 


26. 


Type II Modification for Contrac 


t 
88= 


=0153 






No. 1877: Emergency Airfield 
Pavement Repairs, FY 1987-88 


12 


27. 


Resolution Authorizing Rental 
Credit to Avis Rent-A-Car 


88- 


-0154 


12 


28. 


The Parry Contract 


88- 


-0155 


12 


29. 


Travel/Traininq FY 1988/89 
NEW BUSINESS: 


88- 


-0156 


12 
14 



CORRESPONDENCE: 15 



N. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 15 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

August 22, 1988 
Special Meeting 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z. L. Goosby 

Athena Tsougarakis 

Donald R. Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of July 19, 
of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0131-A 



were adopted by order 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0130 regarding the settlement of a 
claim at the closed session of July 
19, 1988. 



E. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 
1 . Retirement Resolution: Albert K. Wong 
No. 88-0133 



Minutes, August 22, 1988. Page 4 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that it was his pleasure to 
recommend this resolution to the Commi ssion . Mr. Hong is retiring 
after 37 yea^s of service to the City and County of San Francisco. 20 
of which were at San Francisco Airport. Mr. Wong was educated in San 
Francisco ana a graduate of Berkeley. He served two yea^s in the 
U.S. Army and started his career with the City in 1951 as a Jr. Civil 
Engineer in the Water Department. He was the project engineer when 
the Airport's primary runways were extended to accommodate the new 
generation of aircraft. Mr. Wong has served as a Jr. Assistant, 
Associate and Senior Civil Engineer and has been responsible for 
tenant improvement construction at the Airport for 20 years. 

Mr. Turpen read a statement from Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for 
Facilities Operations and Maintenance, who could not be present: 

Without a doubt Al Wong embodies all that is good about public 
employees and in particular Airport employees. If I were there 
I could regale the Airport's Commission with a great many 
stories in which airlines with high-priced consultants and 
expensive computer models were told by Al Wong, after he slowly 
took from his pocket a paper airplane, placed it on their 
drawing and did a number of quick calculations, that their 
figures were incorrect and their plan wouldn't work. Not once 
in my five years at the Airport has Al given me wrong informa- 
tion. What's more, he's been steady as a rock when it's 
counted most. Whether we're talking informally in my office or 
in a heated meeting with a contractor who's threatening to 
close down the Airport's busiest runway, his judgment has 
always been first rate. Like all great employees he is 
selfless. Unlike some who have superior technical knowledge 
and enjoy the power that comes with being the sole source of 
that knowledge, Al Wong, with great patience, time and again 
has shared his knowledge and experience with younger employees 
so that they may become superior engineers and the Airport a 
better place. 

Mr. Turpen added that he could not have said it any better. He 
thanked Mr. Wong for his tremendous and outstanding dedicated service 
to San Francisco Airport. 

Commissioner Bernstein also thanked Mr. Wong for his service to the 
Airport. He said that businesses are built and government is run and 
we all live because of dedicated people like Mr. Wong. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Report on "Ground Access to San Francisco International Airport", 
Prepared by Deakin, Harvey, Skabardonis - Oral Report 

Mr. Turpen said that this is an advisory report. Staff is presently 
extracting recommendations from the extensive ground transportation 
report completed by Mr. Harvey and his firm. Those recommendations, 
as well as staff reactions, will be forwarded to the Commission prior 
to the next Commission meeting. 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 5 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby sa ; d that he met with t h e San Mateo Labor Council at 
their request to try to get some action on their chiidca r e center and that 
he recaped the Commission's position at that meeting. He said that Ms. 
Kessler of the San Mateo Labor Council said that there has been a lot of 
confusion over this issue. He told Ms. Kessler that the Commission never 
discussed an apprenticeship program, as was her understanding. He felt 
that there should be a meeting between the San Mateo Labor Council, staff 
and two Commissioners to clear the air over this issue. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Labor Council claimed that they are not 
opposed to the Internship Program. He said that Ms. Kessler was in 
possession of a document that discussed such a program and that the 
Airport's Community Relations Director indicated that an apprenticeship 
program had been discussed and they were afraid it would come to pass. 

Mr. Turpen said that at one time staff, with the approval of the 
Commission, wanted to establish a student intern program which would 
entail bringing high school students out to the Airport for a few hours a 
week to acquaint them with the Airport and how it works. The program was 
put on hold when the labor unions expressed concern that this might 
displace Airport employees. The Labor Coalition indicated repeatedly that 
they were not in a position to approve or disapprove such a program and 
told staff that they must go to the individual unions. He said that Mr. 
Bouey has been meeting with the individual unions on this subject for some 
time. The Airport is prepared to set up another meeting with the Labor 
Coalition, if the Commission wishes. He said that he did not feel that a 
meeting with the Coalition would be fruitful since they are not in a 
position to approve or disapprove this matter. 

Commissioner Goosby told Mr. Turpen that Ms. Kessler did not even know if 
the Coalition wanted to meet, he simply made the offer. 

Mr. Turpen said that he would contact Ms. Kessler and keep the Commission 
informed. 

Commissioner Goosby said he would like to attend the meeting. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that it was his recollection that after having 
agreed to the program, the Labor Coalition was heavily lobbied by Mr. 
Martin of the Machinists Union. The Labor Coalition then backed off and 
told the Airport to deal with the individual unions. 

Mr. Turpen told Commissioner Fleishell that he was correct. He said that 
he would send a letter to Ms. Kessler. 



H. POLICY 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

3. Policy Statement Prohibiting AIDS-Related Discrimination 

No. 88-0134 Policy statement prohibiting 

discrimination in employment on the 

l»s»4» ^f A ,--,,,:,•., H T mm no flof i 



discrimination in employment on the 
basis of Acquired Immune Deficiency 
Syndrome (AIDS), Acquired Immune 
Deficiency Syndrome Related Compl°> 
(ARC), Human Immunodeficiency Vir 
Infection (HIV Infection) or any 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 6 



medical signs or symptons related 
thereon. 



I. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item No. 4 was put over. 

4. Selection of Financial Advisor 

Resolution authorizing the selection 
of Lazard Freres/Gri sby Brandford as 
Financial Advisor for a five-year 
period. 

Mr. Turpen asked that this item be put over to the next meeting. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he would appreciate an opportunity 

to discuss some of the details. He said that for years attorneys 

were given a percentage of a bond issue but the Airport broke with 
tradition by bidding them on a fee basis instead. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Increase in Valet Parking 

No. 88-0135 

Mr. Turpen said that this was part of a package which the Commission 
presented to the Mayor's Office. The Mayor's approval of this rate 
increase is consistent with the Airport's overall revenue plan. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if monthly statements were prepared on 
the number of users of the service and wondered if the rate increase 
would reduce that number. 

Mr. Turpen said that a running tally is kept and that staff would 
return in 90 days with a report. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that money is made even with rate 
increases. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he spoke with a user of th-e service 
who told him that it is invaluable when he is in a hurry and that he 
would pay anything. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the numbers have declined over the 
years . 

Mr. Turpen responded that he could not recall. 



6. Option Approval and Rental Rate Modification of Lease with Butler 
Aviation - San Francisco, Inc. 

No. 88-0136 Resolution authorizing the Butler 

Aviation - San Francisco, Inc. Lease 
extension through February 9, 1994 
with a rental rate adjustment. 

Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 7 



Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Garibaldi if he reviewed the lease 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that he had and said that it was a very old 
lease. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked Mr. Garibaldi if the lease contained 
anything that offended him. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that he would not write the lease the same 
way today but under the conditions we are obligated to honor the 
present wording. 



Contract Modification to Professional Services Agreement with Deakin, 
Harvey, Skabardonis 

No. 88-0137 A contract modification to the profes- 

sional services agreement with the 
firm of Deakin, Harvey, Skabardonis to 
conduct a study on the ground trans- 
porportation at San Francisco Interna- 
tional Airport, increasing the total 
funding to $27,300, and providing an 
extension of time through January 1, 
1989. 

Commissioner Goosby asked why this contract was being extended. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that the extension is to complete 
the report. 

Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Harvey will come before the Commission at 
the time staff presents its recommendations in order to answer any of 
the Commission's questions. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that after the Commission authorized 
the $14,000, Mr. Harvey was asked to do additional work on the 
original study. She said that Mr. Harvey did a significant amount of 
work and that many things have happened at the Airport as a result of 
this study. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that Mr. Harvey was a good man. 

Mr. Turpen said that this will close out this chapter in the 
Airport's history. 



8. Bid Call - Contract No. 2065: 



Airport Beacon 

No. 88-0138 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 2065 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to all for bids when ready. 



9. Authorization to Accepts Bids for the South Terminal Cigarette 

Vending Lease 

No. 88-0139 Resolution authorizing Director to 

accept bids for the South Terminal 
Cigarette Vending Lease. 

Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 8 






10. Award of Contract 1559A: 

Repair and Reconstruction of Taxiways 'G'and 'H' and Runway 1R at 

Ta^wav 'F' 

No. 88-0140 Resolution awarding contract No. 1559A 

to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. 
in the amount of $2,377,096.00. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Commission has reviewed the City 
Attorney's opinion and the Commission is aware that a protest has 
been answered by the City Attorney. 



11 . Award of Contract No. 1464: 

Boarding Area 'B' Apron Extension 

No. 88-0141 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1464 

to Ghilotti Bros., Inc., in the amount 
of $859,485.00. 



12. Close-Out of Contract No. 1792 



Records Library, Engineering Building 



No. 88-0142 Resolution to approve a time extension 

and assessment of liquidated damages 
for avoidable delays and to close out 
this contract. 



13. Close Out of Contract No. 1557 



Extension of Taxi way 'M and Overlay of Taxi way 'F' 

No. 88-0143 Resolution to close out contract and 

approve time extension of avoidable 
delays and assessment of liquidated 
damages . 



J. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 14 through 21, 23 and 25 through 29 were unanimously adopted. Item 
No. 22 was put over and Item No. 24 was moved to the end of the calendar 
for discussion. 

14. Retirement Resolution - Edward J. Lanzilla 

No. 88-0144 

Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Lanzilla has been with the Airport for a 
number of years and has been spearheading the Airport's new effort to 
reissue all permits at SFO, consistent with the Airport's new 
security plan. He said that Mr. Lanzilla has done an outstanding job 
and his dedicated effort will be missed. 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 9 



15. Retirement Resolution - Patrick McLaughlin 
No. 88-0131 



16. Authorization to Distribute Working Paper 'B' of the Airport's Maste 
Plan 

No. 88-0145 Resolution authorizing Director to 

distribute Working Paper 'B' to 
Airport tenants, the public, govern- 
mental agencies, and other interested 
parties for review and comment. 



17. Declaration of Emergency - Contract No. 2089: 

Emergency Electrical Cable Failure Feeder 12AM-1 (BETWEEN PD-A538 
AND STA. 'AM' ) 

No. 88-0146 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring an emergency because of the 
failure of the electrical cable 
serving the North Field Area, and 
directing the Director of Airports to 
effect the necessary repairs. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that this happened a year ago with the 
Chevron cable. He said that since it was discovered at that time 
that the cable had some serious problems he assumed that staff would 
have checked the other similarly situated power cables. 

Mr. Turpen said that it's the third or fourth time this has happened. 
He said that a portion of the cable was replaced at the time of the 
Chevron failure and the entire cable was subsequently replace. 

Mr. Ernie Eavis, Facilities Operations and Maintenance, responded 
that the final phase of the contract is going out to bid this 
Wednesday and will complete the project. He said that Mr. Yuen's 
division will let a contract that will back feed the entire area so 
that if any portion of it goes out there will be a second system. 

Mr. Turpen asked where the cable failed this last time. 

Mr. Eavis responded that the tails had not been replaced and that is 
where the failure occurred. 

Mr. Turpen asked how many feet of cable is involved. 

Mr. Eavis responded that the cable is 2000 feet. 



18. Bid Call - Contract No. 1946: 

International Terminal Carpet Replacement 

No. 88-0147 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 1946 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 10 



19. Bid Call - Contract No. 1665: 
Boarding Area 'B' Pier F-F 
Installation of 10-Inch Haterma^n 

No. 88-0148 Resolution apcroving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract Nc. 1665 ard 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 



20. Award of Professional Services Contract for Contract No. 1739 : 
Evaluation and Improvements of Security Systems to Hardy and 
Associates, Inc. 

No. 88-0149 This work includes vulnerability 

analysis, analysis of alternative 
access control systems, preparation of 
construction documents and 
construction monitoring. 



21 . Award of Professional Services Contract for Contract No. 1985: 
International Terminal Plenum Space Improvement 

No. 88-0150 This work includes investigation 

evaluation, and preparation of 
construction documents and 
construction monitoring. 



Item No. 22 was put over. 

22. Award of Contract 1553: 

Taxi way 'L' Extension to Runway 19L 

Resolution awarding Contract No. 1553 
to Bay Cities Paving & Grading Inc., 
in the amount of $1,868,369.00. 



23. Award of Contract No. 2046: 

Runway 28R/28L Pavement Grooving and Repair 

No. 88-0151 Resolution awarding Contract -No. 2046 

to The Lowrie Paving Company, Inc. in 
the amount of $385,850.00. 



25. Reject All Bids: - Contract No. 1944: 

West Underpass - Rehabilitation of Drainage Pump Station 

No. 88-0152 Rejecting all bids and authorizing 

Director to re-bid. 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 11 



26. Type II Modification for Contract No. 1877: 

Emergency' Airfield Pavement Repairs, r i seal Year 1987-j 



No. 88-0153 



Resolution approving time extension 
for Contract No. 1877 from September 
23, 1988 to December 31, 1988 at no 
additional cost to the City. 



27. Resolution Authorizing Rental Credit to Avis Rent-A-Car 
No. 88-0154 



Resolution authorizing rental credit 
of $7,101.00 to Avis Rent-A-Car as 
reimbursement for counter construction 



28. The Parry Contract 
No. 88-0155 



Contract for the Parry Company to 
produce four noise impact area 
contours to be used on the Quarterly 
Report and at the Airport Round- 
table. The contract also provides for 
appearances by representatives of the 
Parry Company to substantiate the 
noise contours. ($30,000) 



29. Travel/Training Fiscal Year 1988/ 
No. 88-0156 



Resolution authorizing attendance at 
Pacific Basin conferences. 



The Commission failed to reject all bids by a two to two vote, with 
Commissioners Bernstein and Goosby casting the dissenting votes. This 
item will be calendared for the next meeting. 

24. Rejection of All Bids: Hair Salon Lease 

Resolution rejecting all bids and 
authorizing a re-bid for the Hair 
Salon Lease. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Adrienne Hanson, Great Haircuts, if she 
wished to address the Commission. 

Ms. Hanson told the Commission that Great Haircuts submitted all of 
the necessary papers with the exception of the certified check. They 
had in their possession a cashiers check and cash when they submitted 
their papers and indicated at that time that they were willing to run 
to the bank and return within 15 minutes with a certified check. She 
said that she was told by an Airport staff member that that would be 
acceptable. 

Ms. Hanson said that she failed to obtain a certified check on 
Saturday after spending two and a half hours making inquiries. 

Ms. Hanson said that they are qualified, having been in business for 
seven years, and would be an asset to the Airport. 



Minutes, August 22. 1988, Page 12 



Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
explained to the Commission that there were two qualified bidders who 
failed to follow the p-ocedure so she felt that the item should be 
re-bid. She presumed that two of the original bidders would re-bid 
and that there might possibly be additional bidde-s this time. She 
said that she saw no reason to waive the defect in this bid. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he thought a bifurcated bidding 
procedure had been established to prevent this type of problem. 

Ms. Gittens said that the bifurcated procedure is only used for 
construction contracts since the only documents in a concession 
contract that would result in cancellation or termination of the bid 
is the bid item itself and the bid bond. None of the other required 
items would constitute terminal failure of the bid process. Even 
failure to have HRC documentation at the time of the bid would not 
result in a non-responsive determination. 

Commissioner Goosby said he did not understand the difference between 
the two. 

Ms. Gittens explained that in the bifurcated process the only items 
required at the time the bids are opened are the bid bond and the bid 
amount. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the only defect in the bid is that 
the bond was filed too late. If the bifurcated system had been in 
place someone would have noticed that the bond had not been filed. 
He said that in the past the Commission has waived more serious 
defects than this. He did not understand why staff was going through 
the time and expense to re-bid this item when the top bid is almost 
double the second bid and three times larger than the lowest bid. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Commission has never waived failure to 
submit a bid bond. 

Mr. Turpen asked Ms. Gittens to explain the problems with each of the 
three bids. 

Ms. Gittens explained that Hair Waves missed the deadline on the bid 
bond. The second bidder did not meet the required experience. The 
third bidder submitted their bid bond in a form that is specifically 
prohibited. 

Mr. Turpen added that in the past when there has been a large range 
in bids the Commission has typically rejected all bids. 

Ms. Gittens said that staff has offered to review all of the bidder's 
materials before the next bid date. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that was fair. 

Mr. Turpen said that generally this type of problem is not 
encountered. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the difference was in the validity of 
a certified check versus a cashiers check. 

Ms. Gittens responded that a cashiers check can be cancelled without 
the Airport's knowledge. 

Commissioner Fleishell added that the Administrative Code was amended 
last year and now directs departments as to what types of securities 
can be accepted for performance. 

Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 13 



Ms. Gittens added that due to the problem with certified checks the 
Commission has a'sc expanded the kinds of security that car, be 
accepted for smaller contracts. She said that banks are typically 
reluctant to issue certified checks, claiming that it is a lot of 
paper work for them. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if cash was acceptable. 

Ms. Gittens said that cash is prohibited as it is not on the list. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that cash creates a lot of problems. 

Commissioner Fleishell argued that all of the other forms are 
substitutes for money. 

Commissioner Fleishell moved to reject all bids. 

Ms. Hanson said that they were told that a cashiers check would be 
acceptable if submitted by 10:00 AM Monday morning. 

Ms. Gittens said that this was a case of mi scommunication. She said 
that Ms. Si Ion of Property Management could not tell them that they 
could not submit anything other than what was on the bid document. 
Ms. Hanson was led to believe that the Commission could waive this 
defect. Ms. Gittens said that the documents speak for themselves as 
to what is prohibited and what is allowable as a bid bond. What Ms. 
Silon was trying to say was that she could not fail to allow them in 
the room and try to produce whatever they wanted to produce. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the bidder, having failed to 
procure the proper bond on Saturday, could not have obtained one by 
the 10:00 AM Monday morning deadline. 

Commissioner Goosby said that it is the perogative of the Commission 
to waive technical defects. 

Ms. Gittens said that that was what the Property Manager was trying 
to express. The documents speak for themselves and Ms. Silon could 
not speak for the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he was certain that if this defect had 
been on the $20,000 bid the Commission would not be taking action to 
reject all bids. He did not feel this was fair. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that the contracts and bid proposals 
should be reviewed in order to guard against problems such as this. 
They should be concise and simple so as not to mislead bidders. 

Mr. Turpen said that in general they are concise and simple but 
occassional ly problems occur. 



K. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



Minutes, August 22, 1988. Page 14 



L. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



* * 



N. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:49 AM to go into closed session. 



'jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, August 22, 1988, Page 15 



\4S 



2 SAN FRANCISCO 
° AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEFT. 

GAM FRANWt««wO 



MINUTES 



SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EOWARO FLEISHELL 

VlcrPr»sld«nt 

OR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

DON RICHARDS STEPHENS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

September 20, 1988 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 
B. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Special Meeting of 
August 22, 1988 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Ninth Aviation Safety Award 
Smoking Ordinance 



88-0157 



3 
3 

3-4 
4-5 



POLICY: 
Water Conservation 



88-0158 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Rejection of All Bids - Hair 
Salon Lease 

3. Northwest Request for A 
Variance 

4. Authorization to Conduct Pre- 
Bid Conference for a Pacific 
Bazaar Lease in the North 
Terminal 

5. Exercise of Option for Lease 
No. 85-0108, Associated 
Limousine Operator of San 
Francisco 

6. Option Approval and Rental 
Rate Modification of Lease 
with Chevron, U.S.A. , Inc. 



-0159 
-0160 



88-0161 



88-0162 



88-0163 



88-0164 



5-8 

8 



8-9 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Declaration of Emergency - 
Emergency Electrical Cable 
Splice Replacement (Feeder 
12AM-1) PD - A243 



88-0165 



8. Close Out of Contract No. 
1564R: Rehabilitate 

Drainage Pump Station No. 1 88-0166 9 

9. Close Out of Contract 1656: 
Replacement of Pumps at 
Industrial Waste Pump 

Station 'C and 'A' 88-0167 9 

10. Bid Call - Contract No. 1686: 
Repair Terminal Islands - Lower 

Level Road 88-0168 10 

11. Award of Professional Contract 
to Develop a Pavement Management 

System for the Airport 88-0169 10 

12. Award of Contract No. 1999: 
Terminal Approach Roadways Pave- 
ment Widening and Repairs 88-0170 10 

13. Airport Development Aid Program 
ADAP No. 9, Amendment No. 3 to 

Grant Agreement 88-0171 10 

14. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 88-0172 10 

15. Approval of Claims Settlements 88-0173 10 

16. Rejection of All Bids - Contract 
988: Remodel Engineering Build- 
ing and HVAC System 88-0174 11 

17. Rejection of All Bids - Contract 
No. 2044: International and 
North Terminal Underground Tanks 

Replacement 88-0175 11 

18. Rejection of All Bids - Contract 
No. 1553: Taxiway 'L' Extension 

to Runway 19L 88-0176 11 



NEW BUSINESS: 

Host Lease 

Q707 

Ground Transportation 

Master Plan 

Mayor Agnos - Commendation 
for Commissioner Tsougarakis 

CORRESPONDENCE: 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 13 





11 




11 


11 


-12 




12 


12 


-13 




13 



Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

September 20, 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 
Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 
Donald R. Stephens 

3. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of August 22, 1988 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0157 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0132 regarding the settlement of a 
claim at the closed session of August 
22, 1988. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Tsougarakis commended the Airport for receiving its ninth 
Aviation Safety Award. She said that SF0 continues to receive these 
annual awards for being the top airport in the country inspite of having 
received a perpetual award several years ago. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this standard of excellence was attributed to 



Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 3 



total staff effort or were one or two departments responsible for 
maintaining this level of performance. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, responded that it was a total staff 
effort. He said that if there is any emphasis it would be in medical 
preparedness, which in great measure is due to the contribution of our 
Medical Clinic which works closely with staff. Also, Operations and 
Police Communications, under Duke Briscoe's guidance, do outstanding jobs 
as well. He said that Clay Scott, Assistant Deputy under Duke Briscoe 
does a superb job. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the annual Crash/Fire/Rescue drill is 
being held this morning at the Airport. He said that Airport staff is 
very creative in this area. Among other achievements, SFO had the first 
mobile bomb scanning trailer in the country. He said that SFO's efforts 
have been widely recognized. 



Mr. Turpen said that KCBS mistakenly announced this morning that the 
Airport's Commission would be discussing a smoking regulation at the 
Airport. He said that there is nothing on calendar in that regard, nor 
was anything anticipated for today. Staff is looking into amending the 
Airport's smoking regulation as a result of an ordinance adopted by the 
Board of Supervisors which mandates certain changes in smoking/non-smoking 
areas. A recommendation will be presented to the Commission in the future 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, explained that the Board of 
Supervisors ordinance requires all City departments and any property 
leased by the City to comply with its conditions. He said that the main 
condition is that smoking areas in public areas must be physically 
segregated from the rest of the public area and that means that a wall 
must divide the smoking area from the non-smoking area. 

Mr. Garibaldi told the Commission that it will be very difficult to 
establish discrete smoking areas in the International Terminal lobby area 
due to its configuration. Staff is currently trying to determine how it 
can comply with that ordinance without creating a lot of problems. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that staff is doing a survey of the Airport 
in order to provide recommendations to the Commission. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the ordinance provides for exemptions. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that exemptions for bars and restaurants have been 
included but the ordinance defines a bar or restaurant as being enclosed 
by four walls. He said that the problem the Airport faces is that a 
number of its facilities are not enclosed by four walls. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if an exemption process has been 
established. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that there 1s no way to appeal. 

Mr. Turpen added that staff will provide alternatives for the Commission 
once the impact has been determined. One alternative would have to 
include the physical and financial limitations of the Airport. The other 
alternative would seek some type of exemption wherein the Airport could 
live within the spirit of the ordinance without the exacting physical 
demands . 

Commissioner Stephens asked what the chances were of obtaining an 
exemption. 

Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen responded that he felt the chances would be fairly good. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that the Supervisors don't consider the Airport when 
they adopt these ordinances. They base their decisions on the facilities 
familiar to them in town and forget about the unique situation at the 
Ai rport . 

Commissioner Goosby commented that the Supervisors should take into 
account the fact that an airport lobby can be the size of a football field 

Mr. Turpen said that the boarding area of the International Terminal was 
designed as an open space area to accommodate passenger volume and the 
design purpose of the facility would be defeated by building walls. He 
said that the Airport will have to be creative in its response to this 
ordinance in order to live within the regulation at a reasonable cost and 
not compromise operational considerations. 

Commissioner Goosby reminded the Commission that passengers can no longer 
smoke on flights that are less than two hours. 

Mr. Turpen said that there are some exceptions, i.e. a longer flight can 
be declared non-smoking if there are a certain number of non-smokers on 
board. He said that Northwest has a total ban on its domestic flights. 



POLICY: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

1 . Water Conservation 

No. 88-0158 Proposed resolution setting the charge 

for excess use of water over the 
al lotment. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

By a 3 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Tsougarakis casting the dissenting 
vote, the Commission waived the defect in the Hanson's Great Haircuts 
bid. The Commission then unanimously approved award of the Hair Salon 
lease to Hanson's Great Haircuts. 

2. Rejection of All Bids - Hair Salon Lease 

No. 88-0159 Resolution rejecting all bids and 

No. 88-0160 authorizing a re-bid for the Hair 

Salon Lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission should recall from the last 
meeting that there was some controversy over the bid bonds for this 
lease. He continued to recommend that the Commission reject all bids 

Ms. Hanson, Hanson's Great Haircuts, said that at the time of the bid 

they had in their possession all of the required items, minus the 

certified check. She explained that in lieu of the certified check 
she had cash and a cashier's check, which was accepted. 



Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 5 



Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Hanson who told her that she could 
submit a cashier's check. 

Ms. Hansor responded that she submitted her documents to Eileen Silon 
who then asked another staff member if the cashier's check was accep- 
table or if cash should be submitted instead. Ms. Hanson said that 
she was told that they did not want the cash but would take the check. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Hanson why she submitted a cashier's 
check rather than a certified check after having read the documents 
issued by the Airport. He said that the documents are very specific 
as to the bid bond form. 

Ms. Hanson confessed that having neglected to open the envelope and 
read the documentation immediately, it was not until Saturday that 
she discovered the stipulation. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if there was a reason why staff was being 
so technical. He said that a certified check is an obligation of a 
bank. A cashier's check accepts a check and turns it into the 
obligation of a bank. He wanted to know why we were turning someone 
down on this basis. He said that it's good money to the Airport. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it's good money as long as the person who 
submitted the cashier's check keeps it good. The Airport's experi- 
ence has been that a cashier's check can be cancelled without our 
knowledge. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Commission, as well as the Board of 
Supervisors, looked into this issue with respect to construction 
contracts in 1985. She said that smaller businesses were having 
trouble obtaining certified checks as banks were indicating that it 
was too much trouble. The Commission subsequently adopted a policy 
expanding the list of acceptable types of security for bid bonds for 
smaller leases to five and three types of security for all others. 
Ms. Gittens said that preceeding Commission action the Board of 
Supervisors clarified its own policy with respect to bid bonds. The 
Board's policy does not allow for cashier's checks. 

Commissioner Stephens asked Mr. Garibaldi what the reason would be to 
take a certified check over a cashier's check. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that it is better security for the Airport. 
The individual drawing a cashier's check can withdraw the funds at 
any time without notice, leaving the Airport without security. That 
cannot be done with a certified check. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission can either reject all bids and 
rebid the lease, at which point the bidders might have a better 
understanding of the process, or, waive the defect. 

Ms. Gittens added that if the Commission opts to waive this kind of a 
defect then the Commission might as well waive an analagous defect on 
the high bidder. She said that the two eligible bidders had 
basically the same defect, i.e. failure to procduce an acceptable bid 
bond. The high bidder was 15 minutes late but had the right kind of 
security. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that one was late and one was on time and 
had cash. He asked if cash was an acceptable form of security. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Airport has not accepted cash. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he voted against it because he felt 



Minutes, September 20, 1988. Page 6 



that the move to reject all bids was due to the fact that Ms. Hanson 
was the low bidder. He felt that if she had been the high bidder her 
bid would have been accepted. The Commission has the right to waive 
this defect and has done so in the past. 

Commissioner Stephens said that he has had the feeling in the past 
that some bidders were trying to take advantage of the Commission and 
slide around the edge of an issue. He said that when a bidder shows 
up with a cashier's check and $2500 in cash it would be difficult to 
say that the bid was not made in good faith. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Ms. Hanson submitted the cashier's 
check because she was told by a staff member that it would be 
acceptable to do so. She could have submitted the cash just as 
easily. 

Ms. Gittens said that the high bidder had a similar defect in that he 
failed to submit an acceptable bid bond because he was late. 

Commissioner Stephens felt that that was a different defect. He 
agreed with Commissioner Goosby in that Ms. Hanson bid in good faith 
and that the recommendation to reject is due to the fact that she has 
the low bid. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed that Ms. Hanson showed good faith but 
felt that the Commission must also keep in mind that its responsibi- 
lity is to the Airport, not towards any one bidder. She said that 
the Commission has the option to reject all bids. She cautioned the 
Commission that waiving this defect would set a precedent and could 
be used as leverage by other concessionaires. 

Commissioner Stephens asked Mr. Garibaldi if the Commission had the 
authority to waive this defect. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that although the Commission has the 
authority to waive this defect he would be concerned about the great 
disparity between the high bidder and the low bidder. He reminded 
the Commission that one of the obligations the Commission has under 
the Lease and Use Agreement is to maximize the Airport's revenues. 

Commissioner Stephens asked how long it would take to rebid this 
lease. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it could be rebid in three weeks as the 
specifications would not have to be changed. 

Mr. Turpen added that Ms. Gittens had indicated to him that she would 
be willing to go to a two-tiered system where all documents except 
the bid amount would be examined. 

Commissioner Stephens felt that was a good idea. 

Ms. Gittens said that she would ensure that the next bid is on a 
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, rather than a Monday. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis also suggested that bids be opened at 5:00 
PM rather than 10:00 AM. 

Ms. Gittens responded that conducting the bid opening at 10:00 AM has 
worked well. She said that traffic problems seem to arise later in 
the day. She added that the Hair Waves bid was late because they did 
not realize that the banks they were dealing with did not open until 
10:00 AM. 



Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 7 



Commissioner Goosby argued that if the Hair Waves had been told by 
staff that they could be 15 minutes late he would approve their bid. 
Ms. Hanson was told by staff that she could submit the check instead 
of the cash. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis disagreed and said she would not have voted 
any differently. 

With Commissioner Tsougarakis casting the dissenting vote, the 
Commission voted 3 to 1 to waive the defect in Hanson's Great Cuts 
bid. The Commission then voted unanimously to award the lease to 
Hanson' s Great Cuts. 



Items 3 through 6 were unanimously adopted. 

3. Northwest Request for A Variance 

No. 88-0161 This item transmits to the Airports 

Commission a Variance Request from 
Northwest seeking to continue operat- 
ing Stage 2 aircraft during nighttime 
hours after January 1, 1989, when 
Stage 2 aircraft operation is prohibi- 
ted by our Noise Abatement Regulation 
Airport Resolution 88-0016. Item 
recommends that an independent hearing 
officer be appointed to consider 
request. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this is much like DHL's request 
previously brought before the Commission. Northwest is requesting a 
variance from the air operations bulletin for nighttime operations. 
The Commission directed staff to secure an independent hearing 
officer to consider this request and render their findings to the 
Commission for its decision. He continued to recommended this as the 
most efficient method of handling these matters. He said that a 
hearing officer will be secured from the American Arbitration 
Association. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis recommended that the Commission be provided 
with a quarterly report on the variances issued. 

Mr. Turpen explained that DHL was requesting a waiver from the 25 
percent rule, whereas Northwest's variance request is for the 100 
percent stage 3 nighttime requirement. 



4. Authorization to Conduct Pre-Bid Conference for a Pacific Bazaar 
Lease in the North Terminal 

No. 88-0162 

Commissioner Goosby complimented staff on this concept. 



5. Exercise of Option for Lease No. 85-0108, Associated Limousine 
Operator of San Francisco 

No. 88-0163 Resolution approving the renewal 

option of Lease No. 85-0108 for 



Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 8 



Associated Limousine Operators of San 
Francisco, effective February 22, 
1988, for two years, under the same 
terms and conditions. 



6. Option Approval and Rental Rate Modification of Lease with Chevron, 
U.S.A., Inc. 

No. 88-0164 Resolution authorizing a ten year 

option extension and a rental 
adjustmentfor Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 
operation of bulk storage plant. 

Commissioner Goosby said he could not understand why no one wanted to 
bid this concession. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff failed in their persistent attempts to 
secure potential bidders. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Airport received a $500,000 yearly minimum 
for this lease in the 1 960 ' s and had to drop it down to about $75,000 
when it was last bid. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Items 7 through 18 were unanimously adopted. 

7. Declaration of Emergency - Emergency Electrical Cable Splice 
Replacement (Feeder 12AM-1) PD - A243 

No. 88-0165 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring an emergency because of the 
failure of the electrical cable splice 
serving the North Field Area and 
directing the Director of Airports to 
effect the necessary repairs. 



Close Out of Airport Contract No. 1564R: 
Rehabilitate Drainage Pump Station No. 1 

No. 88-0166 Resolution to approve a time extension 

and assessment of liquidated damages 
for avoidable delays and close out 
this contract. 



Closeout of Airport Contract No. 1656: 

Replacement of Pumps at Industrial Waste Pump Station 'C and 'A' 

No. 88-0167 Resolution to approve a time extension 

and assessment of liquidated damages 
for avoidable delays and close out 
this contract. 



itomhor Jfl 1 Qflfl Pane Q 



10. Bid Call - Contract No. 1686: 

Repair - Terminal Islands-Lowe- Level Road 

No. 88-0168 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget, and schedule for Contract No. 
1686 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



11 . Award of Professional Services Contract to Develop a Pavement 
Management System for the Airport 

No. 88-0169 Resolution awarding professional 

services contract to ARE, Inc. in the 
amount of $120,000. 



12. Award of Contract No. 1999: 



Terminal Approach Roadways Pavement Widening and Repairs 

No. 88-0170 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1999 

to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. in the amount 
of $94,990.00. 



13. Airport Development Aid Program ADAP No. 9 
Amendment No. 3 to Grant Agreement 

No. 88-0171 Resolution accepting Amendment #3 to 

ADAP No. 9 Grant Agreement and 
authorizing the Director to execute 
said Amendment. 



14. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 88-0172 Resolution in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he did not recall ever seeing .this type 
of item on the agenda and was glad for the opportunity to review 
these actions. He asked if the Commission could receive copies of 
job classifications referred to in these reports. 

Mr. Turpen explained that there are various types of hiring 
mechanisms. Some positions are temporary and the employee is hired 
for a set period of time. Others are hired temporarily and can stay 
in the position until an exam is held. 



15. Approval of Claims Settlement 

No. 88-0173 Resolution approving the settlement of 

claims not exceeding $5,000.00 for the 
period April to June, 1 1988. Total 
claims: $2,250.00 



Minutes, September 20. 1988, Page 10 



16. Rejection of All Bids - Contract No. 988: 

Remodel Engineering Building and HVAC System 

No. 88-0174 



17. Rejection of All Bids - Contract No. 2044: 

International and North Terminal Underground Tanks Replacement 

No. 88-0175 



18. Rejection of All Bids - Contract No. 1553: 
Taxiway 'L' Extension to Runway 19L 

No. 88-0176 Proposed resolution rejects all bids 

due to Airport funds being tied up in 
1 itigation. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

Commissioner Stephens asked what was happening on the Host lease. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Mayor's Office has requested additional 
information from staff and Host/Marriott. That information has been 
provided and staff is awaiting a decision from the Mayor's Office. He 
said that he indicated to the Mayor's Office that a decision is needed by 
September 30, 1988. If closure has not been reached by that date he will 
withdraw his recommendation at the October 18 Commission meeting as he 
felt that allowing this issue to pend for nine months does not serve the 
purpose of the minority community, the concessionaire, staff or the 
purposes of professionalism. 



Mr. Turpen told the Commission that an appeal has been filed to the FAA on 
the Administrative Law Judge's decision in the Q707 case. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the $8 . 6-mi 1 1 ion is lost. 

Mr. Turpen replied that it will not be lost until September 30, 1988 as 
the Airport has gone to the 9th Circuit for an injunction against the loss 
of that money. The appeal is based on Federal law, put in place in 
January, which stipulates that money cannot be denied without a hearing. 
He said that no hearing was held. He hoped that the injunction is upheld 
prior to the September 30 deadline so that the funds will be held pending 
resolution of the Q707 issue. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis offered her parting words... "Go get urn." 



Mr. Turpen said that staff will be returning to the Commission within the 
next couple of weeks with information on ground transportation, i.e. rule 
changes as they relate to vans and rate changes with respect to the per 
trip charge. Staff is currently working on this issue and meeting with 
some of the effected parties. 

Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 11 



Commissioner Goosby asked if the rates will be raised. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he would like to raise the rates back to $1.00. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed with Mr. Turpen. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the 35?! fee has merely been a license to circle. 
He said that the new "Star Wars" system will be in place on January 1 and 
will give the Airport an extremely accurate account. He said that it has 
taken a lot longer than anticipated to install but will be well worth it 
when completed. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff is also looking at an A/B permit system. The 
"A" permit would allow ground transportation vehicles to come to the 
terminal roadways. The "B" permit would allow those vehicles to disembark 
their passengers at a remote location and transfer from there. He said 
that a people-mover system is ultimately planned. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the size of the lower roadway must be 
included in some long range plan. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the problem is that the roadway is confined on 
both sides by the physical relationship of the garage and the terminal. 
He said that staff is considering setting up a remote facility and 
dedicating some space on the lower-level for a people-mover. That would 
free the roadway of rent-a-car buses and offer the opportunity to balance 
traffic between the two levels. He said that it would also offer 
passengers an attractive alternative. 



Mr. Turpen said that the Commission should have received their copies of 
the Master Plan. He said that 150 copies were sent out for comment. 



Commissioner Goosby asked Ms. Gittens if the comments in Mr. Tan's letter 
would be directed to a pre-bid conference. He said that Mr. Tan makes 
some good points. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Mr. Tan's letter would be directed to a pre-bid 
conference. 



Mayor Art Agnos joined the meeting at 9:40 AM. 

Mayos Agnos thanked Commissioner Tsougarakis for her four years of service 
to the City. He explained that Commissioner Tsougaraki s' s departure 
results from a rotational change rather than any reflection of her 
service. He told the Commission that the rotational changes he is making 
in Commissions offer opportunities to San Franciscans to serve on various 
Commissions that determine policy for San Francisco and have no other 
intent. 

Mayor Agnos said that Commissioner Tsougarakis has showed special interest 
not only in noise abatement, which has been an on-going problem and an 
issue on which he commends the Airports Commission for the position which 
it recently took vis a vis a Federal issue. He said that Commissioner 
Tsougarakis has also been involved in the Airport's ground transportation 
issue. Mayor Agnos said that the area which is his personal favorite is 
the work which she did with the Art Committee for the Airport. He said 

Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 12 



that the exhibitions on display at the Airport have been truly 
spectacular. He receives compliments about them not only as he travels 
through the City but as he travels around the country. He thanked her for 
her special role in that effort. 

Mayor Agnos again thanked Commissioner Tsougarakis for her service and 
presented her with a plaque. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thanked the Mayor. She said that she was 
greatful for the opportunity to serve on the Airports Commission and in 
other capacities prior to this. She said that she began her service in 
1975 and has been through pieces of four administrations. One thing she 
has found is that the staffs of various departments with which she has 
been associated have always been very solid, but especially the Airport, 
Administration in and Administration out. They have done a tremendous job 
and continue to do so. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis wished the Mayor well and told him that he has a 
good department in the Airport. She said that she hopes to be a part of 
the Administration in some capacity in the future. 

Mayor Agnos said he is creating an informal alumnae group of former 
Commissioners whom he calls upon for special projects and advice from time 
to time. He said that the latest example of that is Toby Rosenblatt, 
former President of the Planning Commission, whom he has asked to help 
review proposals being made on baseball stadiums. He said that the fact 
that Commissioner Tsougarkis has been rotated out does not mean that she 
has ended her service to the City. 

Commissioner Bernstein told Commissioner Tsougarakis that he has served on 
Commissions for a very long time and he would never try to rank 
individuals but she would certainly be tied for first. He thanked 
Commissioner Tsougarakis and told her that he felt the City owes her for 
her service. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:50 AM to go into closed session. 




/k-cTT 



Je|m Caramatti 
omission Secretary 



Minutes, September 20, 1988, Page 13 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

i'urijc LIBRARY 



OCTOBER 4, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

DONALD R. STEPHENS 

SHARON B. DUVALL 



LOUIS A.TURPECM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commi ssion 

October 4, 1988 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

B. ROLL CALL: 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meeting of 

September 20, 1988 88-0177 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fl el she 1 1 ' s resigna- 
tion 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Canadian Airlines International, 

Ltd. -Application/Recommendation 

for Variance 88-0178 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

2. Retirement Resolution: 

Cruz Gallndo 88-01 79-A 5 

3. Professional Services Contract 

for Commemorative Brochure 88-0179 5 

4. Design Review Approval: 
International Terminal Cafe and 

Dim Sum/Sushi Bar 88-0180 5 

5. Declaration of Emergency: 
Contract No. 2130: Upper 

Level Road - South Terminal 88-0181 5 

6. Award of Professional Services 
Contract to Sear-Brown Group 
for Waterproofing North 

Terminal Roof 88-0182 5 

7. Contract No. 1464: Boarding 

Area 'B' Apron Extension 88-0183 5 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

Proposed Increase in Ground 

Transportation Fee 6-10 



Mayor Agnos Commends 

Commissioner J. Edward FT ei she 1 1 10 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 10 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 10 

J. CLOSED SESSION: 11 

K. ADJOURNMENT 11 



Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 4, 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. 1n Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: J. Edward Fleishell, Vice President 

Z. L. Goosby 
Sharon B. Duval 1 

Absent: Morris Bernstein, President 

Donald R. Stephens 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 4, 1988 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 88-0177 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell said that upon assuming office Mayor Agnos asked 
all Commissioners to submit their resignations. He said that he offered 
his resignation at that time even though he had two more years to serve. 
He said that he met with the Mayor several times to discuss his Ideas as 
to where the City should be heading and concluded that it was In the best 
Interest of the City to resign. His resignation will take effect at the 
conclusion of todays meeting. Commissioner Fleishell said that 1t has 
been a pleasure to serve with the Airport staff and his fellow 
Commissioners. He has spoken with members of the senior staff and left a 
standing offer to share his 10 years of experience whenever it was needed. 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 
The following Item was unanimously adopted. 

Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 3 



Canadian Airlines, International, Ltd. - Application/Recommendation 
for Variance 

No. 88-0178 This item transmits to the Airports 

Commission a Variance Application from 
Canadian Airlines International, Ltd. 
seeking relief from having 25X of the 
Airline's operation conducted by Stage 
3 aircraft as of January 1, 1989 as 
required by our Airport Noise 
Regulation. Item recommends that an 
Independent hearing officer be 
designated to consider application. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that this 
request for a variance Is similar to those previously brought before 
the Commission. He explained that there are two elements to the 
Noise Regulation, one requires all operators serving SFO to have 25X 
of their operations performed with the quietest aircraft. The other 
element requires that all operations between the hours of 1:00 AM and 
6:00 AM be performed with the quietest possible aircraft. 

Mr. Turpen said that requests for variance have been received from 
six airlines. The Commission elected to assign these hearings to an 
independent hearing officer. This Item provides authorization to 
include this request for variance from Canadian Airlines with the 
others. 

Commissioner Goosby asked which airlines have requested a variance. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Northwest is requesting a variance from the 
nighttime rule. Canadian, DHL, Evergreen, Branlff and Flying Tiger 
have requested variances from the 25X rule. He said that those six 
will probably be the only non-compliant airlines in operation at SFO 
on January 1 . 

Mr. Turpen said that around September 1 staff sent several notices 
out to aeronautical tenants as well as letters to CEO's and Station 
Operations offices reminding them of the requirements that will be 
effective on January 1, 1989. He wanted to give the airlines enough 
time to apply for a variance and give the Airport time to conduct the 
variance process 1n a methodical manner. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the airlines will be responsible for 
paying part of the cost for the hearing officer. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the airlines would not have to share the 
cost as this is the Airport's hearing. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that 1t 1s anticipated that the 
hearings will be held at the end of October. The hearing officer 
will render findings to the Commission, through him. Mr. Turpen said 
that he will evaluate those findings and provide his views to the 
Commission. It will be the Commission's responsibility to either 
grant or deny the variance request based on those findings. 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 4 



2. Retirement Resolution: Cruz Galindo 
No. 88-01 79-A 

3. Professional Services Contract for Commemorative Brochure 
No. 88-0179 



Design Review Approval: International Terminal Cafe and Dim Sum/ 
Sushi Bar 

No. 88-0180 



Declaration of Emergency 

Contract No. 2130: 

Upper Level Road - South Terminal 

No. 88-0181 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring an emergency because of 
concrete slab failures of the upper 
level road, and directing the Director 
to effect the necessary repairs. 



6. Award of Professional Services Contract to Sear-Brown Group For 
Waterproof inq North Terminal Roof 

No. 88-0182 Scope of contract includes investiga- 

tion of existing conditions, design of 
new waterproofing membrane , repair of 
skylights and parapets, inspection 
services during construction, and 
laboratory testing of waterproofing 
membrane. Total contract cost: 
$82,600. 



Contract No. 1464: 



Boarding Area 'B' Apron Extension 

No. 88-0183 Resolution approving the deletion of 

Mendocino Construction Services, Inc. 
as subcontractor to Ghllottl Bros., 
Inc. on Contract No. 1464, Boarding 
Area 'B', Apron Extension. 



G. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was convened at 9:08 AM and adjourned at 9:30 AM, there 
being no further public testimony. 



Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 5 



8. Proposed Increase in Ground Transportation Fee 

Mr. Turpen asked Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and 
Finance, to brief the Commission. 

Ms. Gittens said that two years ago staff recommended a new system 
for cost recovery for commercial ground transportation vehicles. 
This system allocated the applicable cost for commercial ground 
transportation vehicles based on the number of trips. At that point 
a trip billing system was instituted. The cost discovered two years 
ago, based on our cost allocation system used for all other rates and 
charges at the Airport, was determined to be $1.00 per trip. The 
Commission, at that time, determined that since the program was just 
beginning, full cost recovery should not be achieved at the first 
step. She said that after two and one half years the Commission and 
the Mayor are more Interested In achieving full cost recovery and 
maximizing revenue for the City. Staff has been asked to return with 
recommendations for the ground transportation fee. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the recommendation was $1.00 per trip. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was correct. 

Mr. John Bosso, Santa Cruz Alrporter, said that he was representing 
most of the ground transportation operators and was circulating a 
petition around the room for signatures. He read the petition to the 
Commission and asked that it be made part of the record. (See 
attached) 

Mr. Gene Blazek, Imperial Inn, said that they are a small operator in 
South San Francisco and they aren't getting what they are paying for 
now. Their drivers can't pick up their passengers in the designated 
area, which they are being charged to use, because of unauthorized 
vehicles, such as taxicabs, parking in the area. He did not feel an 
Increase would help his business or the Airport. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many trips he makes a week or a month. 

Mr. Blazek responded that he has 51 rooms and they average around 100 
trips a month for a cost of $50. He complained that his drivers 
receive tickets for double parking at the Airport because they can't 
park in the designated areas. 

Mr. Robert Bledsoe, Grovesnor Hotels, said that they have two hotels 
at the Airport, the 322 room Holiday Inn and the Grovesnor Airport 
Inn with 206 rooms. When the ground transportation regulation was 
first Instituted they estimated that the Holiday Inn made about 1400 
trips to the Airport per month, for a cost of $350. He said that 
they have found that estimate to be low and that they are actually 
making about 1800 trips per month and paying $450 a month. He felt 
that the $1.00 increase was substantial considering the competition 
at the Airport. His vans can't park In the designated areas and 
there Isn't enough space to serve their passengers properly. He 
complained that the Airport Police hastle his drivers. 

Mr. Phil Hesley, Executive Vice President of Park 'N' Fly, told the 
Commission that they need more notice when this type of issue comes 
before the Commission. He said that his lot received notice on 
Thursday. 

Mr. Hesley said that Park 'N' Fly presently pays in excess of $25,000 
a year to the Airport for this operation. He said that they have 
complained to the Airport many times that they can't use the 
designated area because the Airport Police allow van drivers to take 
their breaks In that area rather than the holding area. 

Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 6 



Consequently, Park 'N' Fly drivers can't pick up their customers. 

Mr. Hesley also told the Commission that the blue and the green zones 
can't be differentiated at night. He said that the public doesn't 
care about the color of the zone, they simply want to know where to 
go to get their transportation. He asked the Airport to change the 
color scheme so that the zones can be differentiated easily. 

Mr. Hesley also asked to see a better breakdown of applicable costs 
to the ground transportation operators. He asked if It is meaningful 
for the operators to absorb these costs and how these trips will be 
monitored. He said that the Airport presently uses a self-audit 
system wherein the operators are responsible for reporting the number 
of trips they make. He said that his company submits honest figures 
but how does he know 1f other operators are being honest. If the fee 
Is raised to $1.00 will other operators be paying their fair share of 
the burden. 

Mr. Hesley did not feel that It would be fair for SuperShuttle to be 
considered at a lower number unless there 1s a cost justification for 
it. He complained that SuperShuttle uses both the Inside and outside 
lanes so they can provide better service to their passengers. He did 
not understand why that was allowed. 

Mr. Hesley said he did not understand the number of trips that are on 
the cost analysis. He asked what's Included In 1t and how the 
Airport arrived at that number. He asked If it Included Airport 
vehicles or ground transportation people only. He said that he 
recognized the difficulty In differentiating the vehicles that pass 
through the Airport as some are quite similar, inspite of their 
distinctive markings, and asked how the Airport proposed to handle 
this problem. He also asked what benefits would be provided to the 
public and to the ground transportation operators if the rates go up. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen to explain the system that will 
be installed in January. 

Mr. Turpen explained that staff has been working on an automatic 
vehicle identification system which will be operational on or about 
January 1. Each commercial vehicle at the Airport will be required 
to carry an encoded device which will be read by special scanners and 
will tell the Airport which vehicle just entered, the time and the 
lane, etc. and give tallied counts and the necessary data for billing 
purposes. The computer Information will be available and can be 
checked and will be as close as the Airport can get to an objective 
system. This system will not only benefit the Airport 1n terms of 
billing and understanding roadway utilization but will benefit ground 
transportation operators in terms of letting them know what their 
Individual vehicle activity has been at the Airport during certain 
periods of the day. He said that this system will hopefully reduce 
the number of redundant trips and allow easier access to the 
roadways. He said that a recently completed study of hotel/motel 
vehicles and vans showed that they were only averaging 1.4 passengers 
per trip. He felt that that average was low and inconsistent with 
the Airport's goal of maximizing the number of passengers per vehicle 
and minimizing the number of vehicle trips. He said that this 
proposal was aimed at a single objective of getting frequent roadway 
users to pay their proportionate share and understand roadway 
ut1 lizatlon. 

Mr. Hesley asked who would pay for the equipment. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport will pay to Install the system 
and the first transponder. There will be a fee for vehicles 
requiring replacement transponders. 

Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 7 



Mr. Hesley asked what type of cost this would mean and if it would be 
absorbed through the increase in fees. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it would. 

Mr. Robert Leech, Leech's Auto Rental, said that they fought a 
proposed fee in 1973, contending that everyone should pay to enter 
the Airport. Although the Airport abandoned the idea and independent 
auto renters didn't pay a fee from 1973 to 1980, Park 'N' Fly and the 
others kept paying. The Airport was fought again In 1980 and again 
the Airport abandoned the idea, yet the hotels/motels and Park 'N' 
Fly kept paying. 

Mr. Leech said that 1n 1986 the Airport wanted a $1.00 fee for 
traffic congestion. Cost recovery for roadways was never mentioned. 
The Airport was fought again. He said that the Independent auto 
renters will go to court 1f the fees are raised. 

Mr. Leech asked the other operators In the audience to meet with him 
in the corridor after the meeting. 

Mr. Andy DePaul , Good Neighbors Airbus, deferred to Mr. Steel. 

Mr. Eldon Johnson declined to speak. 

Mr. Lemlsut, Grovesnor Airport Inn, said he did not have anything to 
add to Mr. Bledsoe's statement. 

Mr. Jimmy Steel, Yellow Cab Coop, speaking on behalf of the Airport 
shuttles, said that they submitted an interim proposal to the Airport 
and have met a couple of times. They feel that this increase is 
inappropriate at this time and asked for a 60-day delay. They did 
not feel that a $1.00 fee was warranted as far as the shuttles were 
concerned. He said that through their proposal traffic will be 
eliminated, as will the cost to the Airport. They have outlined 
their proposal and will amend it subject to further discussions with 
Mr. Turpen and his staff. He believed that a revised proposal would 
soon be avai lable. 

Mr. Steel again asked for a 60-day continuance as they did not 
receive notification of this issue until Thursday or Friday of last 
week. 

Mr. Ken Tehaney, Villa Hotel, told the Commission that this increase 
would add $50,000 to the ground transportation fees of some San Mateo 
County-based hotels at a time when these hotels are not making 
money. He disagreed with this Increase although he did feel that a 
reasonable rate increase would be heard. He asked for a postponement 
In light of the Installation of the "Star Wars" system In January to 
see what It will do to the Airport's revenues. He said that this 
system might aid In eliminating some of the needless runs that are 
being made. 

Mr. Tehaney asked if the motivation behind this increase was a 
traffic problem or a revenue problem. 

Mr. Tehaney asked for a postponement of six months to a year to see 
If this device will generate revenues and help to control traffic. 
At the same time it will give the hotels and other services a chance 
to see If they can provide some type of common bus service for all 
the hotels and possibly approach PUC to help organize system. 



Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 8 



Mr. Charles Weiss, Timesavers, told the Commission that he is the 
administrator-driver of a one vehicle operation. He said that 15 
percent of his business takes him to the Airport so the $1.00 fee on 
10-15 trips a month would not be a problem to him. He said that he 
was moved to appear before the Commission because of the $1,000 cash 
per vechile deposit they are required to pay In order to operate at 
the Airport. He said that he will be paying less than $10.00 a month 
to the Airport and yet the Airport is holding $1,000 of his money. 

Mr. Weiss told the Commission that Federal tax laws require that all 
Income, Including Interest, be reported yet he has been unable to 
find out how much Interest that money Is accruing. He said that Ms. 
SI Ion (Airport Property Management) could not give him an answer. He 
was subsequently told that the City Attorney's Office Indicated that 
the Airport 1s required to pay Interest however no one knows how much 
and apparently It Is being given no thought. He said that since he 
never received the necessary form Indicating how much Interest he was 
accruing he could not report It to the IRS. He said that while the 
Airport Is Interested 1n Increasing revenues no one Is paying a 
second thought to complying with Federal regulations in this regard. 

Mr. Weiss said that the $1,000 fee was a financial hardship and he 
hoped that the Airport would give consideration to people like him. 

Mr. Weiss also told the Commission that he had a 30-day revokable 
permit that allows him to park in the courtyard yet he continues to 
see the general public parking in those areas without being issued 
tickets by Airport security. He said that space is limited and the 
situation is especially bad during the peak holiday season. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Airport has a commitment to pay 
interest and Federal law requires us to file a document annually, 
carboning the taxpayer. He asked Mr. Garibaldi to look into it. 

Mr. Martin Kantoff, representing the Hotel and Restaurant Association 
of San Mateo, told the Commission that the hotel van service provided 
to hotel customers is a no-charge service, unlike a shuttle service 
or a taxicab. If the fee goes up to $1.00 it will place a tremendous 
hardship on the hotels in the area. He requested a postponement in 
order to allow time to examine the various proposals and alternatives 
available to them to limit Airport congestion and possibly to start 
their own bus service. 

Mr. Turpen thanked the audience for their comments and suggested that 
a meeting be held within the next 30 days with Interested parties so 
that the details regarding the financial basis for staff's 
recommendation and concerns can be explained. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport has had a commitment since 1981 to 
cost center support. The other concern continues to be vehicle 
congestion as It relates to unnecessary trips. There are about 
45,000 vehicle trips per day to the Airport, half of which are in 
commercial vehicles. A dramatic Impact can be made on the number of 
vehicles at the Airport 1f the passenger number per vehicle can be 
raised. 

Mr. Turpen said that a notice regarding a meeting to discuss this fee 
will be sent out advising interested parties of the date and time. 
The meeting will be held in the Airport's main conference room. He 
said he would be happy to go through the proposal in detail, listen 
to any Input, explain the Airport's concerns and hopefully come to 
some conclusion. This item will then be recalendared so that the 
results of that meeting can be shared with the Commission. 



Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 9 



Commissioner Fleishell agreed that there should be a delay as there 
is currently a new Commissioner on board and a second one about to be 
sworn in. The new members should have an opportunity to look into 
the various elements involved in fee charging at the Airport. He 
said that he has already spoken to this issue and has always felt 
that different categories of vehicles should have different rates. 
He felt that people who use the Airport because they have to provide 
a service 1s one category, and people who are engaged in a direct 
transportation Industry is another. This system is used at other 
airports and should be used at SFO. 

Commissioner Goosby said that that was the concensus of the 
Commission. Staff was Instructed to split the fees but the Airport 
eventually ended up with an across the board 35£ fee. 

There being no other speakers Commissioner Fleishell declared the 
public hearing closed at 9:30 AM. 



Mayor Art Agnos arrived at the meeting at 9:40 AM to thank Commissioner 
Fleishell for his 10 years of extraordinary service on the Airport's 
Commission. He said that he usually has to ask what individual 
commissioners have achieved prior to these ceremonies but Commissioner 
Flei shell's accomplishments are so well known there was no need for an 
inquiry. He said that Commissioner Fleishell participated in negotiating 
the settlement that resulted in an annual service payment to the City of a 
little over $10-milHon to the City's general fund. The settlement he 
helped negotiate provided better opportunities for women and minorities to 
enter the Airport's concession program. Mayor Agnos said that 
Commissioner Fleishell also advocated free luggage carts for international 
airline passengers. 

Mayor Agnos said that he likes to personally thank a Commissioner when his 
request to step down Is honored. He said that Commissioner Fleishell had 
two years left to his term and did not have to step down. He likes to let 
the public know, through his appearance, that the rotation that he asks 
Commissioners to accept is not a reflection on the outgoing Commissioner. 
Commissioner Fleishell will become part of the Mayor's alumnae group and 
will be called on from time to time to serve the City 1n his particular 
area of expertise. 

Mayor Agnos thanked Commissioner Fleishell for his concern and considera- 
tion and presented him with a plaque commending him for his service to the 
City. 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 10 



* * * 



J. CLOSED SESSION: 

There was no closed session. 



K. ADJOURNMENT: 



* * * 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM. 




^Unih^fL 



OeAn Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, October 4, 1988, Page 11 



PETITION TO AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

The undersigned ground transportation operators at San 
Francisco International Airport hereby petition the Airports 
Commission, City and County of San Francisco as follows: 

1. By letter mailed September 28, 1988, the Director of 
Airports advised us that he was submitting a reguest to the 
Airports Commission to guadruple and almost triple existing ground 
transportation fees from $.25 and $.35 per trip to $1.00 per trip. 
That letter arrived at the earliest on September 29, 1988 and gave 
less than three business days as notice for the proposed action. 
We object to such short notice as a violation of fundamental 
fairness and a violation of our Constitutional rights of due 
process under the 14th Amendment of the United States 
Constitution. 

2. The proposed amendment purports to include a cost 
justification summary which is totally ambiguous and 
uninformative. For example, over $.54 of the proposed rate is 
attributed to the expense of "All other Airport Roadways." Ground 
operators travel almost exclusively on Terminal Loop Roadways 
which are treated as a separate expense. No definition is 
included either for "Dedicated Ground Transportation Expenses" 
which comprise $.36 of the proposed increase. Again, to make a 
meaningful response to the proposal, it's necessary that those who 



are being asked to accept these costs be fully advised of what the 
expenses mean and how they were computed. 

3. In a very real sense, the Ground Transportation Fee is an 
improper imposition at any rate. The Ground Transportation 
Operators do not increase the amount of usage of the Terminal Loop 
Roadways, they decrease it. None of the Ground Transportation 
Operators convince people to take airplane trips to or from San 
Francisco International Airport. What the Ground Transportation 
Operators do is provide larger vehicles which reduce the traffic 
congestion and parking requirements at the airport by discouraging 
the use of the private passenger cars. That, in effect, results 
in less use of the roadway, less traffic, and less parking 
problems. When the Ground Transportation Fee was enacted, that 
point was acknowledged, but the fee was termed "small", and it was 
indicated that it would not rise. Now the fee is increase three 
and four times, it is not "small", and it is time to recognize 
that instead of penalizing the Ground Transportation Operators, 
the Airports Commission should be accomodating them and 
recognizing the useful function that they serve. 

We respectfully petition this Commission to reject the 
recommendation of the Director of Airports. If the Commission has 
any inclination to consider the impost ion of any change in the 
fee, then we respectfully request that the matter be continued for 
sixty (60) days, that the Director of Airports be required to 
furnish to any Ground Transportation Operator who requests it, a 
complete information packet describing the basis of computation, 
and setting forth in detail each cost which is utilized in 
arriving at the proposed rate. 



NAME 



ENTITY 



ADDRESS 



rapped VlfiQ***^ ^F-.rQ^il^vi Un^ "So^S fabler B^ al tv><-rx 



<s-^ 






<££ggd /^jgcxv &&j3S&j£&ia3£. -^^ Mf/^/Fr #? s SIF ?t/ej 




NAME ENTITY ADDRESS 







L ^er?o ?AftW / fals jtos (Hail 



gg^S&flJ VJ^'AUk 9M) 5. gf£ ^ & f«* /^ 






?.c* ■ 



/•_ ' ' 



// // 



nfju^f fed ^_ 



IL^-^S-Z^L. 



./{KfcLCL(j_ ^j tfc^Mf&c lift) S.frrfhuvm- Stn <?Wz 

:jM^# ; - ■ ^ 

"r— ■ ^ <?*/££' 



OCT 04 «** 

3632 25tn Street *** 

San Francisco, CA 94110 
OctoDer 3, 1988 

Airports Commission 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Commissioners: 

I am writing to you regarding Item 1 on the calendar for your 
meeting of October 4, 1988. I ask that ray letter be made part of 
any proceedings or hearings regarding the item. 

I am a homeowner in the southern part of San Francisco and have been 
increasingly frustrated by the dramatic increase in overflying 
aircraft noise in ray neighborhood during the past several years. I 
oppose the application of Canadian Airlines International for a 
variance from the provision in the SFIA Noise Abatement Regulation 
that requires 25% of its operation to be in Stage 3 aircraft as of 
January 1, 1989. 

I am aware of the factors listed in Section F(2) of the Noise 
Abatement Regulation that are considered relevant in deciding 
whether a variance is in the public interest. With these factors in 
mind, I believe that granting Canadian's application for a variance 
will not be in the public interest for the following reasons: 

1. SFIA and the surrounding community will be adversely 
affected by continued noise if the variance is granted; 

2. It is not fair to other aircraft operators who are in 
compliance with the regulation to grant a variance to Canadian; 

3. Granting a variance to Canadian will provide a bad 
precedent for other operators seeKing to avoid the reasonable 
timetable set forth in the regulation; 

4. On an industry-wide basis, compliance with the 25% 
requirement after January 1, 1989, is both economically and 
technologically feasible; 

5. According to the regulation's Statement of Basis and 
Purpose, SFIA still is not in compliance with California's noise 
law, and granting a variance to Canadian therefore will make 
compliance more difficult. 

The Statement of Basis and Purpose recognizes that, especially in 
view of the far more stringent measures enacted at some major 
airports in this country, the timetable for conversion of operations 
at SFIA is "entirely reasonable." (Statement, page 26.) Homeowners 
such as myself who have been, and still are, being adversely 
affected by aircraft noise have been asked, in effect, to accept the 
regulation's timetable as a compromise and to live with the noise. 
We have lived with instusive noise and, I can assure you, we 
continue to do so. Canadian likewise should be expected to 
effectively "live up to its end of the bargain" and comply with the 
timetable. 




Mwm, I ■ wL 



ristopher 1H. Hall 



L SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




pocuu ^ PT - 



Wl-*~>^ 



i ... iial if-: • '**" 



MINUTES 



-• NOVEMBER 1, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

DR. Z. L. GOOSBY 

DONALD R. STEPHENS 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 
Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

November 1 , 1988 



CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION 

SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 3 

ROLL CALL: 3 

SPECIAL ITEM: 

Election of Officers 88-0184 3 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Update on Variance Requests 3-4 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 4 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

2. Variance Applications - Branlff, 
Evergreen & Flying Tiger 
A1rl 1nes 

3. Selection of Financial Advisor 

4. Selection of Bond Counsel 

5. Rejection of All Bids and 
Authorization to Re-Bid Contract 
No. 1017: Expansion of Electrical 

Distribution System - Phase II- 88-0188 7 

6. Award of Professional Services 
Contract No. 1961: Evaluation & 
Expansion of Central Heating & 

Cooling Plant 88-0189 7 

7. North Terminal Bookstore - 
Authorization to Proceed with 

Pre-Bid Conference 88-0190 7-8 

8. Acceptance of Gift of $10,000 

from Wool ley Foundation 88-0191 8 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Retirement Resolution: 

Roy Manuel 88-0192 



88-0185 


4 


88-0186 


4-7 


88-0187 


7 



10. Bid Call: Contract No. 2086 
Lomite/Mi 1 lbrae & Central 

Pump Stations Repairs 88-0193 9 

11. Bid all - Contract No. 2090: 
Re-Roof Bldg. 646 (Airborne 

Bldg.) 88-0194 9 

12. Bid Call - Contract No. 2137: 
International Terminal Terrazzo 
Flooring at Customs' Waiting 

Area 88-0195 9 

13. Bid Call - Contract No. 2121: 

Emegency Pavement Repairs (1989) 88-0196 9 

14. Award of Contract No. 1943: 

Cable 12AM-1 Splice Replacement 88-0197 9 

15. Declaration of Emergency - 
Contract No. 2139: Cable Failure 

- Feeder 12BQ-1 88-0198 9-10 

16. Rent Credit - Host International 88-0199 10 

17. Resolution Ratifying Personnel 

Actions 88-0200 10 



NEW BUSINESS: 10 

CORRESPONDENCE: 

Free Luggage Carts in Customs 11 

Update on Host Option 11 

Runways 11-12 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 12 



Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 1 , 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:10 A.M. 1n Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: Morris Bernstein, President 

Z. L. Goosby 
Donald R. Stephens 
Sharon B. Duval 1 
Patrick A. Murphy 



C. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The Commission unanimously elected Commissioners Bernstein and Goosby as 
President and Vice President, respectively. 

1 . Election of Officers 

No. 88-0184 

Commissioner Stephens moved the nomination of Commissioners Bernstein 
and Goosby as President and Vice President, respectively and was 
seconded by Commissioner Duval 1. The vote was unanimous. 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, reminded the Commission that In January, 
1988 the Airport passed a new noise regulation which was designed to 
encourage progressive replacement of noisy aircraft with quieter aircraft. 
The regulation will require that 25 percent of each airlines operations be 
with Stage III aircraft. The second provision will require that all 
nighttime operations (between 1:00 AM to 6:00 AM) be performed with Stage 
III operations. These provisions will take effect In January of 1989. 

Mr. Turpen said that there are six airlines which have requested one or 
the other of those provisions. Northwest Orient and Flying Tiger have 
requested a variance from the nighttime provision. Braniff, Canadian, 
Evergreen and DHL have requested variances from the daytime provision. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission of Its direction to hire an Independent 
hearing officer to conduct these hearings. He said that the hearing 

Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 3 



officer will render his findings of fact to the Commission through him. 
He will then transmit those findings, along with his recommendations, at 
the December 20 meeting, at which time the Commission will render its 
decisions on those applications. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the airlines will make their 
presentations to the hearing officer this week. He explained that the 
burden of proof is on the applicant. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the airlines can appeal the Director's 
recommendation. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the airlines can dispute his recommendation 
before the Commission. Ultimately, if the airlines disagree with the 
Commission, they can litigate. 

Commissioner Duvall asked Mr. Turpen if he felt that the amount of time 
anticipated for these hearings was adequate. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the format 1s fairly structured in terms of the 
type of information the airlines need to provide. The bottom line is that 
they must demonstrate a good faith effort toward compliance with the 
regulation and that they are taking bonified measures to try and assist 
the Airport in mitigating noise. 

Mr. Turpen said that Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, has been 
working with the hearing officer and he feels confident that the process 
will go smoothly. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY SOMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following Items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Variance Applications - Braniff, Evergreen and Flying Tiger Airlines 

No. 88-0185 This Item transmits to the Airports 

Commission applications from Braniff, 
Evergreen, and Flying Tiger Airlines 
for a variance from the provisions of 
the Airport's Noise Abatement 
Regulation, Resolution No. 88-0016, 
January 22, 1988. The Item recommends 
that an independent hearing officer be 
appointed to consider the applications 



3. Selection of Financial Advisor 

No. 88-0186 Resolution authorizing the selection 

of Lazard Freres/Grisby Brandford as 
financial advisor for a five-year 
period. 

Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 4 



Ms. Angels Gittens, Deputy Director, Business & Finance, said that in 
March of 1988 the Commission resolved that the Airport would proceed 
with a five-year contract for financial advisory services. Staff is 
looking at those services in association with bond issues as well as 
for Interim services over a five-year period. She said that the 
Airport has several items of financial interest coming up in the next 
several months and while they do not Involve a bond sale, advice and 
research is needed on a couple of these financing Items. 

Commissioner Goosby asked If a bond sale 1s anticipated within the 
next year or two. 

Ms. Gittens said that 1t will depend on the progress of the Master 
Plan as well as a couple of other Items which have not yet been 
brought to closure. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens If she anticipates a bond 
issue. 

Ms. Gittens responded that she did, explaining that there have been 
discussions on a rental car structure and a transportation center 
which staff is trying to get in advance of a full master plan. 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the financial advisor would receive a 
$40,000 retainer versus $2.00 a bond, and, 1f the retainer would be 
credited back. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it would be in a year in which there is a 
bond sale. 

Commissioner Stephens asked how this firm was selected. 

Ms. Gittens said that the decision was based on five Items. A three 
member panel consisting of herself, another Airport staff member and 
the Financial Director of the CAO's Office interviewed seven firms 
out of eleven submissions. 

Commissioner Duvall asked why a five-year contract was selected. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the Airport's basic capital plan is in 
five year Increments. She felt that there should be some consistency 
and coherency to the financing plan so the financial advisor and bond 
counsel should be selected over that same period of time. She said 
that this has been done previously. 

Ms. Gittens reminded the Commission that the feasibility consultant, 
whose responsibility It is to write an Independent report to the bond 
holders on the feasibility of the project, was approved 1n June of 
this year. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how large a bond Issue staff anticipated. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the firms were to assume two bond Issues, 
one for $80-mi 1 1 ion and one for $50-million, so as to have a 
comparison of price. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport had money available to 
cover the anticipated projects. 

Ms. Gittens responded that $87-m1111on is available for current 
capital projects. These funds are available under the old bond law 
and are very flexible. The issue is which projects should be 
financed out of the available funds. Any new financing would be done 
under the new bond law which is very stringent. A judgment must be 



Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 5 



made on each financing as to whether it should be paid with old or 
new funds. Ms. Gittens used the rental car item as an example and 
said that the Airport could fairly flexibly use old funds for rental 
car structures but would be prohibited from using new funds. We may 
want to use old funds for rental car structures and have a new issue 
for other items that are part of our current capital financing plan. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if all of the Airport's current problems 
are taken care of out of available funds. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff currently handles It that way. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that there would be more flexibility if 
our own money 1s used as opposed to bonded money. 

Ms. Gittens explained that "old" did not refer to operating money, it 
referred to capital funds. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the status of the master plan. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the second working paper was reviewed with 
ALUC and the Regional Planing Commission of San Mateo County last 
Thursday. Staff is planning to have a second public meeting in San 
Francisco to seek public Input to the plan. The Master Plan will 
then move into the third of four working papers. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
said that the master plan should appear before the Commission early 
next year, however, the it must still go through an environmental 
impact report which will probably take another nine months. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that it has only given approval to 
distribute working paper 'B'. There will be two additional working 
papers presented to the Commission. 

Commissioner Murphy asked if this contemplated an exclusive right to 
act as the financial advisor for a bond issue. 

Ms. Gittens responded that this 1s for the financial advisor only. 
It will prohibit these firms from bidding on any bonds the Airport 
may want to issue. As all of our bond Issues are competitively bid, 
they could not engage 1n any other financial transaction with the 
Airport during this time. 

Commissioner Murphy asked If they would have the exclusive right to 
be the financial advisor for a bond Issue as part of this five year 
arrangement. 

Ms. Gittens responded that they would. 

Commissioner Bernstein hoped that a memorandum would be sent to the 
Commission before staff requests approval of a bond Issue. 

Commissioner Duval 1 explained that we would want the funding to be in 
place as the preliminary work of the second phase of the master plan 
Is completed. She said that that would take a certain amount of 
forward planning in order for all of the elements of the development 
of the plan and the funding to be completed on a timely basis. The 
proposal before the Commission is a request for approval of the 
consulting services that would give the Airport the opportunity to 
begin that planning that will take nine months to a year and a half. 
She said that we will have the bond issues with 24 months and 
bringing 1n the consulting services at this time would make that 
presentation on the bond Issue even more timely to this Commission. 

Minutes, November 1, 1988. Page 6 



She said that the memo to which Commissioner Bernstein refers would 
probably be the product of the work that would be developed by this 
consulting service. 



4. Selection of Bond Counsel 

No. 88-0187 Resolution authorizing the selection 

of Orrick, Herrlngton & Sutcl iff and 
Pamela J. Jue, a joint venture, as 
bond counsel for a five-year period. 



Rejection of All Bids and Authorization to Re-b1d Contract No. 1017: 
Expansion of Electrical Distribution System — Phase II 

No. 88-0188 This work 1s the second phase of a 

project to expand the 12 kilovolt 
electrical distribution system 
throughout the Airport to replace the 
deteriorated 4 kilovolt systems and to 
provide alternate electrical power 
sources where only a single source 1s 
available at present. 

Low bidder failed to meet HRC require- 
ments. Due to the large difference 
between the low bid and the other 
bids, staff is recommending that all 
bids be rejected and the contract 
re-bid. 



Award of Professional Services Contract No. 1961 



Evaluation and Expansion of Central Heating and Cooling Plant 

No. 88-0189 Resolution approving the agreement for 

professional services for Contract No. 
1961 with Takahashi Consulting 
Engineers, Inc., In the amount of 
$243,000.00. 



7. North Terminal Bookstore - Authorization to Proceed with Pre-Bid 
Conference 

No. 88-0190 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to hold a Pre-Bid Conference 
for the North Terminal Bookstore 
Concession Agreement. 

Mr. Turpen explained the concession process, from pre-bld conference 
to award, to the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby explained that the appropriate time for the 
Commission to offer Input on the lease would be during staff's 
briefing on the pre-bid conference. These procedures are Important 
because they protect the reputations of the Airport, the City and thi 
Commi ssion. 

Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 7 



Commissioner Duval 1 asked if putting ABC on a month-to-month lease 
was a disadvantageous position for the concessionaire. 

Ms. Gittens said that this is not an unusual transition procedure. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if everything would be bid at once. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the bidding would be staggered 1n order to 
avoid two major concessions being down in the same area. 

Commissioner Duval 1 asked if there were other airports in the country 
that currently operate bookstores of this concept and magnitude. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Boston, Pittsburg, Hashington National and 
Dulles have similar concessions. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens how much she thought the 
Airport could get in rent. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that information would come out of the 
pre-bid conference. She said that the Airport has been receiving 
$800,000 from ABC. Staff has a suggested minimum bid for the pre-bid 
conference of $500,000 or 15 percent. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this would be separate from the 
Principal Concessionaire in the Hub. 

Ms. Gittens responded that this lease would be separate. 

Commissioner Bernstein did not think it would be possible to get 
100,000 books into 2,000 square feet. 

Ms. Gittens said that she believed it was possible but would be 
discussed at the pre-bid conference. Staff has looked at bookstores 
around the City with fairly comparable space and found that they 
carry between 20,000 and 25,000 titles with 150,000 books. 



8. Acceptance of Gift of $10,000 from Wool ley Foundation 

No. 88-0191 Resolution accepting $10,000 gift from 

Robert E. Wool ley Foundation for 
Airport Exhibition and Cultural 
Education Program. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Embassy Suites Hotel has 
contributed $10,000 to the Airport's Temporary Exhibition Program. 
The Exhibition Program has received International recognition and 
great credit goes to the five or six member staff, under the 
direction of Elsa Cameron, who work exhaustively to put these 
exhibits Into place. He said that the positive Impact has been 
tremendous. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that this 1s a magnificent offer and 
recognition should be given to the Embassy Suites. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Embassy Suites will be recognized as the 
sponsor of the exhibition selected for these funds. 



Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 8 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Retirement Resolution - Roy Manuel 
No. 88-0192 

10. Bid Call - Contract No. 2086: 

Lomita/Mi librae and Central Pump Stations Repairs 

No. 88-0194 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 2086 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 

11. Bid Call - Contract No. 2090: 
Re-Roof Bldg. 646 (Airborne Bldq.) 

No. 88-0194 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
2090 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



12. Bid Call - Contract No. 2137: 

International Terminal Terrazzo Flooring at Customs' Waiting Area 

No. 88-0195 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
2137 and authorizing that Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



13. Bid Call - Contract No. 2121: 

Emergency Pavement Repairs (1989) 

No. 88-0196 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
2121 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



14. Award of Contract No. 1943: 

Cable 12AM-1 Splice Replacement 

No. 88-0197 Resolution awarding Airport Contract 

No. 1943 to Kingston Constructors, 
Inc., in the amount of $155,900.00. 



15. Declaration of Emergency 
Airport Contract No. 2139: 
Cable Failure, Feeder 12BQ-1 

No. 88-0198 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission In 

Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 9 



declaring the emergency because of an 
electrical cable serving the American 
Airlines Cargo Building No. 5 has 
failed, and directing the Director of 
Airports to effect the necessary 
repairs. 



16. Rent Credit - Host International 

No. 88-0199 Resolution authorizing $12,890.00 rent 

credit to Host International for 
Installation of Soffit 1n the North 
Terminal . 

Commissioner Goosby asked 1f the Airport could have done this work. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport could have done the work but as 
a matter of timing, disruption and administration, the Airport 
typically negotiates some type of rental credit. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that even though the Airport 
subsequently reimburses a tenant, 1t Is often difficult for a small 
business operating at the Airport to come up with the funds to do the 
work. He felt that it wouldn't hurt to have staff do some of this 
work. 

Ms. Glttens remarked that Airport staff recently built the shoeshine 
facilities in the South Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that SFO was the first major 
Airport to go heavily into concession development in 1979, 1980 and 
1981. The North Terminal, designed in the late 1960's, early 1 970' s 
and built in the mid 1970's, was not constructed for concessions. As 
a result, many of our concessions 1n the North Terminal protrude into 
public areas. These problems do not exist 1n the International and 
South Terminals. Mr. Turpen said that he was sensitive to 
Commissioner Goosby's concerns but felt that in this situation it was 
easier for one person to do the whole job rather than try to 
coordinate an effort. 



17. Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 88-0200 Resolution 1n accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



H. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 10 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

Mr. Turpen shared a letter from the Mayor to the Board of Supervisors 
which was in response to the question of free luggage carts in the 
customs arrivals area. Mr. Turpen read two pertinent paragraphs from 
that letter: 

"I am returning file no. 27-88-34 regarding support for a $1.00 
charge for luggage carts at San Francisco International Airport 
without my signature." 

The Mayor's letter goes on to state some factors and continues... 

"In view of this I believe that we should consider this Issue along 
with other revenue generating proposals as we review the Airport 
budget In the coming year and not at the present time." 

Mr. Turpen said that the Mayor has clearly made a decision on free carts 
1n the customs arrival area, as he said he would. For the time being 
the Mayor has elected to continue the free cart program and will take 
this as an Issue within the budget process. 



Mr. Turpen said that as the Commission 1s aware, Host International and 
the Airport have been talking about creating some opportunities for 
minority businesses and at the same time establishing some price control 
mechanisms in exchange for a ten year extension. The Mayor has been 
briefed on this proposal and is particularly concerned that the two new 
members to the Airports Commission be fully acquainted with this 
proposal. The Mayor has also requested that he be provided with some 
additional information. Mr. Turpen said that he did not expect this 
matter to resurface until after the first of the year. During that time 
the new Commissioners will be brought up to speed and the Mayor's 
specific concerns will be addressed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Mayor's concerns remained the same. 

Mr. Turpen responded that those Initial concerns have been addressed but 
other Issues have been raised by the Mayor. He said that as the City's 
chief executive, the Mayor should be acquainted with all of the options 
before a decision 1s made. 



Mr. Turpen told the Commission that at the Regional Planning Commission 
meeting last Thursday night Roger Chlnn, Chairman of the Airport 
Community Roundtable, asked about runway extension, development and 
movement, v1s-a-v1s noise. He told the Commission that a Joint Land Use 
Study was done from 1977 to 1980 comprising representatives from San 
Francisco, the Airports Commission, San Mateo County elected officials, 
the FAA, the airlines and the public. This exhaustive study addressed 
how to mitigate the 13,400 noise Impacted homes at SF0. The study 
concluded that the noise problem can be eliminated 1f one of three 
alternatives Is selected. They are: 1) Reduce flight operations by 50 
percent. This Is not a practical solution, especially due to the fact 
that 1t would Interfere with interstate commerce. 2) Purchase the noise 
Impacted homes. This is being done In Atlanta. Memphis, Nashville, 
Louisville, and St. Louis, among others. This alternative was 
determined to be Impractical due to the housing shortage on the 
Peninsula and the types of homes involved. 3) Relocate the runways. 
This would Involve moving the runways, which back up to Mi librae, out 
about 3000 feet and moving the runways which direct aircraft toward Mt. 
San Bruno out as well. Although the Impact of that alternative would be 



Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 11 



to virtually eliminate the noise impact on those homes, the idea was 
rejected for financial and environmental concerns. Instead, the 
Airport, in conjunction with the airlines and the community, opted to 
try to manage the noise impact by working towards the progressive 
replacement of noisy aircraft, using the noise regulation to achieve 
this goal. This alternative was successful and has reduced the number 
of noise impacted homes to about 4000. Mr. Turpen said that he felt 
that the noise regulation will further reduce that number. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport Land Use Commission voted unanimously 
to relocate the runways, subject to approval of their respective City 
Councils. He expects a response from them In the next month or so. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport would be pleased to examine this 
alternative 1f asked but a recommendation at this point would be 
premature. He felt It Important to the communities to voice their 
opinions on how their concerns should be addressed. The Airport would 
be prepared to do a study at that point. He said that the Issues of the 
Bay environment and noise Impact as well as the Interests of all parties 
must be balanced. 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:05 AM to go into closed session. 



■fadULUllLCCtk 

Jein Caramatti 
(Corimission Secretary 



Minutes, November 1, 1988, Page 12 



3632 25th Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

October 31, 1988 

Airports Commission 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Commissioners : 

I am writing to you regarding Item F(2) on the calendar for your 
meeting of November 1, 1988. I ask that my letter be made part of 
any proceedings or hearings regarding the item. 

I am a homeowner in the southern part of San Francisco and have been 
increasingly frustrated by the dramatic increase in overflying 
aircraft noise in my neighborhood during the past several years. I 
oppose the applications of Braniff , Evergreen, and Flying Tiger 
Airlines for a variance from the provisions of the SFIA Noise 
Abatement Regulation. 

I am aware of the factors listed in Section F(2) of the Noise 
Abatement Regulation that are considered relevant in deciding 
whether a variance is in the public interest. With these factors in 
mind, I believe that granting these three airlines' applications for 
variances will not be in the public interest for the following 
reasons: 

1. SFIA and the surrounding community will be adversely 
affected by continued noise if the variances are granted; 

2. It is not fair to other aircraft operators who are in 
compliance with the regulation to grant the variances; 

3. Granting the variances will provide a bad precedent for 
other operators seeking to avoid the reasonable timetable set forth 
in the regulation; 

4. On an industry-wide basis, compliance with the regulation 
is both economically and technologically feasible; 

5. According to the regulation's Statement of Basis and 
Purpose, SFIA still is not in compliance with California's noise 
law, and granting the variances therefore will make compliance more 
difficult. 

The Statement of Basis and Purpose recognizes that, especially in 
view of the far more stringent measures enacted at some major 
airports in this country, the timetable for conversion of operations 
at SFIA is "entirely reasonable." (Statement, page 26.) Bbmeowners 
such as myself who have been, and still are, adversely affected by 
aircraft noise have been asked, in effect, to accept the 
regulation's timetable as a compromise and to live with the noise. 
We have lived with instusive noise and, I can assure you, we 
continue to do so. Braniff, Evergreen, and Flying Tiger likewise 
should be expected to effectively "live up to their end of the 
bargain" and comply with the timetable. 

Sincerely, 



.(lutfrpAu [llklL 



Christopher H. Ball 






" SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 2 5 1989 






DECEMBER 6, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

DR. Z. L. GOOSBY 

Vice President 

DONALD R. STEPHENS 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 
Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

December 6, 1988 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 

A. 
B. 
C. 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meetings of 
October 4, 1988 and 
November 1 , 1988 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Master Plan 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



88-0204 



PAGE 



3 
3 

3-4 



F. 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Proposed Increase in Ground 
Transportation Fee 88-0205 



Authorization to Receive Bids: 
Duty Free/In-Bond Concession 
Agreement 

Authorization to Receive Bids 
California Products Shop 

Award of South Terminal 
Cigarette Vending Lease 



Authorization for Pre-Bid 

Conference: Lease of Gate 64 

Newsstand 88-0209 

Award of Contract 101 7R: 
Expansion of Electrical Distri- 
bution System to Abbett-Yick, 
A Joint Venture 88-0210 

Supplemental Appropriation 

Request 88-0211 

Declaration of Emergency: 
Contract No. 2158 - Emergency 
Aviation Fuel Pipe Repair and 
Decontamination Work 88-0212 



4-24 



88-0206 


25 


88-0207 


25 


88-0208 


25 



25 

26 
26-27 

27 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Award of Contract No. 2065: 

Airport Beacon 88-0213 27 

10. Award of Contract No. 2121: 
Emergency Pavement Repairs - 

1989 88-0214 27 

11. Supplemental Emergency 
Appropriation, Contract No. 2130 
- Upper Level Road, South 

Terminal - Concrete Slab Repair 88-0215 27 

12. Resolution Modifying Lease and 
Use Agreement - Alaska Airlines, 

Inc. - Modification No. 3 88-0216 28 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

13. Proposed Amendments to the 
Airports Commission's Rules 
and Regulations 28-30 



NEW BUSINESS: 30 

CORRESPONDENCE: 30 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 31 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 6, 1988 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z. L. Goosby, Vice President 
Donald R. Stephens 
Sharon B. Duval 1 
Patrick A. Murphy 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of the 
Commission President: 



No. 88-0204 
No. 88-0205 



October 4, 1988 
November 1 , 1988 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution nos. 
88-0201, 88-0202 and 88-0203" regarding 
settlements of litigated claims at the 
closed session of November 1, 1988 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen if the Master Plan hearing has been 
held in San Francisco. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the meeting has been scheduled for late this 
month. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if any sessions would be held with businesses 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 3 



involved in the ground transportation aspect of the Airport subsequent to 
this hearing and prior to returning to the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen said that when this series of public meetings is concluded 
staff will return to the Commission with a reaction to Working Paper 'B'. 
Staff will then proceed with the next working paper, which will be ready 
in the Spring. After that paper is published and sent to approximately 
300 businesses and entities, another series of public meetings will be 
held. He said that the Airport is two working papers away from a 
completed master plan. The last meeting will be in conjunction with an 
EIR. 

Commissioner Goosby said that there is not a great deal of detail in 
Working Paper 'B'. He asked if the proposal to relocate the runways will 
be mentioned as a projection in the master plan. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the proposed relocation of the runways will not 
be included. He explained that the decision was made to divide this 
process into four distinct steps and then share the results of each step 
with the public. This process would avoid the impression that the Airport 
was taking a leap from a cold start to a completed product and questions 
would not be posed as to the foundation of the plan. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the runway modification suggestion resulted from 
a public review of this document. The question was asked if modifying the 
runways would help mitigate noise. He said that his response to that 
question was that the Commission would be pleased to look at that 
possibility if the communities on the Peninsula, which were involved in 
this portion of the review, wished. Those communities are taking a vote 
on December 8 to request the Commission to study such a proposal. 

Mr. Turpen explained that as the master plan process was scheduled to 
conclude in July he did not believe that this study could be included. He 
assumed that the runway modification would be another phase or an addendum 
to this effort if it moved forward. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that staff's idea of the cargo facility was 
excellent and far reaching. He felt that the master plan should at least 
refer to goals that the Commission may want to achieve. 

Mr. Turpen said that the first step is a forecast of plans, the second is 
the conceptual development and the third will address specific 
developments and should be the most productive for everyone. 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Item No. 1 was unanimously adopted as amended. The following is a 
verbatim transcript of the discussion. 

1 . Proposed Increase in Ground Transportation Fee 

No. 88-0205 Resolution authorizing an increase in 

the ground transportation fee to $1 .00 
per trip for commercial and courtesy 
vehicles. 

Mr. Turpen: Very simoly, the Airports Commission is well aware of 
the subject matter of this agenda item. A public hearing was held on 
October 4. After that, on October 28, staff held a meeting with 
ground transportation operators concerning the staff proposal for a 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 4 



full cost recovery for ground transportation which would amount to 
$1.00 per vehicle trip passing the International Terminal. That 
proposal is before you now. I know there are a number of persons who 
are interested in further sharing their views with the Commission in 
addition to those which the Commission received on October 4. At 
this time I would suggest that we hear from those interested members 
of the public and go from there. 



Commissioner Bernstein: There are quite a few and may I ask that in 
the interest of time that we try to be as brief as possible. Where 
the item has been gone over and over again that there be as little 
repetition as possible. Senator Foran, would you like to lead off? 
We would like to invoke a three (3) minute limit. 



John Foran: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is John Foran and I'm 
with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott law firm representing the 
Parking Company of America. I will adhere to your admonition and 
stay within the three minutes. 

I forwarded a letter to all members of the Commission as well as the 
Chairman, himself, as to why we object to the increase. Parking 
Company of America is a satellite parking facility about two (2) 
miles from the Airport. We object to this on the grounds that the 
computation of costs contained within the fee is disproportionate, 
certainly to the useage of Parking Company of America, as is outlined 
in this letter. I have additional copies. If they are not available 
I can make those available to you too. 

Essentially our position is this. The satellite is about two miles 
away from the Airport. The vans come to the Airport. They only go 
to the upper level, they only are allowed to stop momentarily at the 
blue and white zone... and I understand there's an amendment proposed 
late for the restrictions on that particular zone. They are not 
allowed to unload the passenger, bring the baggage into the inner 
zone or into the terminal facility itself. They are more comparable 
to a individual private vehicle stopping to drop off a passenger, 
except that a private vehicle literally can go to the specific 
airline that the passenger is going to use. This is not possible 
insofar as the courtesy vans are concerned. I'm particularly making 
a distinction as to courtesy vans and other types of vans. I think 
the distinction, first of all is recognized at the present time and 
it is not recognized in the proposed fee that is before the 
Commission at this time. There is a 25£ fee for courtesy vehicles, 
and a 35# fee at the present time for commercial vehicles. So there 
is, presently, distinction recognized as between courtesy vehicles 
and commercial vehicles. 

The van uses such a limited aspect of the facilities. Nothing 
inside. As a matter of fact, at one time the courtesy vans did have 
the ability to have their telephone number listed in the white 
courtesy phones in the airport. This is no longer the fact and 
therefore they make no use of facilities, whether they be utilities, 
whether they be any other types of things. They are, again, only 
limited to the outer terminal loop roadway. 

In the exhibits, in the letters I forwarded to the Commissioners I 
have indicated that the allocation is generally to commercial and 
courtesy vans altogether for approximately $1,024,907. To allocate 
this type of cost, which is contained in Exhibit 'B' of the letter I 
forwarded to the Commi ssion. . .operations, debt service, utilities, 
administration, all of these things, for a van which simply makes one 
single stop. Cannot wait. In fact, as I understand the proposal 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 5 



that is before the Commission in a later item of the agenda, it 
specifically says that those vans cannot wait even for a passenger 
who is coming in on the lower level to come upstairs to their 
vehicles. They can't even wait for that person. They have to 
immediately drop off their passenger, or if there is a passenger 
waiting at the blue and white zone, pick that passenger up and then 
take off. They cannot even stay around to wait for a passenger to 
come up from the lower level. 

So, based upon the distinction that we have set forth in further 
detail in the material that I've forwarded to the Commissioners and 
the exhibits that I've set forward there, we strenously object to 
this particular increase. The fee actually should be nominal, if one 
at all, because we believe that the courtesy vans provide a service 
to the passenger, a convenience to the airline passenger which is 
generally designed to relieve congestion, which I understand is a 
basic policy of the Airports Commission. 

That's essentially the argument that we have before you. I presented 
the other material in writing. If there are any questions I'd be 
happy to answer them. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Bill Lauter of the Hertz 
Company. 



Mr. Bill Lawder: I'm Bill Lauter, Director of Airport Concessions 
for the Hertz Corporation in the Western United States. 

Hertz submitted its comments in writing to the Commission and Airport 
staff on November 14 and I won't bore you by going through that stuff 
again. I would like to summarize that Hertz favors the ground 
transportation access proposed by Airport staff particularly because 
it proports to fully recover costs of facilities used by off-Airport 
rent-a-car vehicles. To the extent that the present fee does not 
recover those costs, on-Airport concessionaires and tenants are now 
subsidizing those off-Airport vehicles. 

Where we part company with staff's recommendation is that Hertz 
believes that this Airports Commission should give serious 
consideration to charging off-Airport rent-a-cars a percentage of 
gross receipts fees. Some 40 odd airports over the last several 
years have enacted ordinances or resolutions, whatever, which charge 
off-airport rent-a-cars a percentage of gross revenues. Virtually 
every court test to date of that has been held in favor of the 
airport's right and perhaps obligation to charge that off-airport 
industry based on the benefits they received from access to. the 
airport which is not. .. (unintel 1 igble) ... somewhere from the access 
that the on-airport rent-a-car companies have because at your request 
we bus as do the off-airport rent-a-car companies. 

That's Hertz position and we'd be happy to answer any questions. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Dave Milton, Flat Rate Rent-A-Car. 



Mr. Milton: Thank you, Mr. President and Commissioners. I'm Dave 
Milton of Flat Rate Rent-A-Car and we're here to object to the rate 
increase on many levels, but what I'd like to speak about is the main 
impetus for the original regulations that went into force about two 
years ago. The Commission, at that time, stated that Airport 
congestion was the primary concern and that this fee would eliminate 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 6 



that congestion. Our contention is that the congestion has not been 
eliminated at all by the initial fee and increasing it to $1.00 
certainly isn't going to help reduce any more congestion. 

I'm sure my other colleagues that will be speaking will speak, on 
other points, but that's the point I'd like to make. . .congestion is 
not eliminated by these fees and we just think that they're unfair. 



Commissioner Stephens: I'd like to ask you one question. Why do you 
not think it would be fair for you to be paying a charge based on 
revenue, as the on-airport car rental dealers are doing. 



Mr. Milton: Well, our feeling is pretty strong that the on-airport 
operators obviously have a competitive advantage being on the 
Airport. They have a captive audience, to a certain extent. We can 
offer competitive prices off Airport to give the traveler a choice, 
generally at substantially lower rates. We feel that a gross 
receipts tax, if you will, violates anti-trust for one thing. Our 
contention from a legal standpoint is that it could very well be 
unconstitutional and that it is a restraint of interstate commerce. 
I'm not an expert on constitutional law. We have an attorney that 
I'm sure will address that, but that's our basic contention. 



Commissioner Stephens: Thank you. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Martin Kantoff of the Hotel Association 



Mr. Kantoff: Good morning. I'm Martin Kantoff. I'm an outside 
consultant to the Hotel Association of San Mateo. The Airport 
proudly proclaims that 30-million people a year travel through the 
Airport, not including those who come to see people off or to greet 
people arriving. Very justifiably so they are proud of that record 
and yet we're concerned with congestion. I believe that is the main 
issue that we are concerned with. Airports generate two things, and 
we're all aware of that. One is noise problems and the other one is 
congestion. I would like to suggest that the courtesy vehicles 
provide a service to the Airport and we should be working together in 
a spirit of cooperation to reduce that congestion. The raising of 
fees or fines or loops or headings, no matter what definition you 
want to give them, will create congestion, it will not eliminate 
congestion. And that may seem strange but I think some of the 
definitions have created problems. The Airport calls each trip a 
heading. We understood a trip to mean one trip to the Airport. We 
now understand that everytime we go before the International building 
that is considered a trip. Which means when we go to the Airport to 
drop someone off upstairs and then cirle around to pick up someone 
downstairs, that is two headings. So we're not talking about 25£ a 
trip we're talking about 50# a trip, depending on definition. This 
has created problems. Quite frankly I admit that many of our members 
misunderstood that and reported 25# when they should have been 
reporting 500. 

With the advent of the transponders going onto the vehicles a more 
accurate accounting will be available both to the Airport and to the 
membership. At this point you don't how much money will be 
generated. We don't know how much money will be generated. The 
transponders are yet to be placed on board the vehicles. I think a 
reasonable amount of time should pass with the transponders in place 
before you can determine how much revenue is coming in. That's one 
i ssue. 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 7 



Another issue, unfortunately, this whole situation has been set up in 
an adversarial condition. I would recommend that a committee be set 
up between the ground operators and the Airport to work out these 
problems in advance in a spirit of cooperation rather than one in an 
adversarial position where the Airport tries to inflict rules on the 
operators and the operators fight the Airport. No one knows better 
what's happening at the Airport as far as ground congestion than the 
operators themselves. They can make, I believe, good recommendations 
to the Airport staff on how to eleviate congestion. 

Another concern that we have is a new application for permit has just 
been sent to the membership. It refers to rules and regulations. 
How can we possibly sign an application for permit which refers to 
rules and regulations before the rules and regulations are put into 
effect and voted upon by this body. Obviously our membership has 
declined to sign the applications for permits until we know what the 
rules and regulations are. And I understand this throws off your 
time schedule, which we apologize for, but it would be like asking us 
to sign a blank check and you'll fill in the amount later on. So 
that's why a lot of the permits have not been filed as yet. 

Thirty-million people a year passing through this Airport boils down 
to a little better than 85,000 a day going back and forth through the 
Airport. There is nobody that I know of who ever left one 
destination to go to another destination whose left from an airport. 
They leave from their homes, they leave from their office, they leave 
from their hotel. Obviously there's got to be a way to move those 
people from those points to the Airport and then again from the 
Airport back to their final destination. We admit that we are 
possibly a cause of some part of the congestion. We are willing to 
work out a program with the Airport to try to relieve that. Another 
portion of the congestion is the airline scheduling. There are less 
planes landing and taking off at the Airport now than there were 
several years ago, however, now they're wide-body planes where you 
have a greater amount of people getting off and on at the same time. 
Obviously this creates congestion. 

I made a suggestion to staff at the Airport three or four weeks ago 
which I felt would address both the issues of raising revenues and 
reducing congestion. As far as I know, because of Mr. Turpen's 
travel plans, those recommendations were never brought to his 
attention. I do have copies of that proposal here with me and I 
would like to at least submit them to the Commission for your 
review. (See Attachment I) Basically what this is a two-tiered 
pricing system. With the transponders in place I believe you'll find 
that you'll be able to monitor traffic alot better now than you ever 
were in the past. And what I'm suggesting is this. ..and if you'll 
look at the second page I think it will give you an idea of -what I'm 
talking about. We're looking at peak travel periods and off-peak 
travel periods. What we're suggesting is that each hotel that 
operates a courtesy van be restricted to that amount of trips to the 
Airport and for that they pay the 25?! fee which they are presently 
paying. If they violate that and they go beyond that amount they 
should be penalized and they should be penalized by raising that fare 
within that group hour to 500. That would prohibit the hotels, or 
anybody else for that matter, from exceeding the amount of trips that 
we feel is fair to give a quality level of service to the traveling 
publ ic. 

I'm sorry, I prepared for this for about three weeks and I'm a little 
nervous. 

I would like to answer any questions regarding this that you possibly 
may have. I feel that it's a good compromise but I would like to 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 8 



state again that I would like to see a committee formed between the 
Airport and some members of the ground access people to be able to 
work out these problems well in advance so that it never reaches the 
stage of frustration that you see today. Thank you very much. 



Commissioner Goosby: The members of your association, have they ever 
contemplated pooling their van service or does each hotel have its 
own courtesy van? 



Mr. Kantoff: At this time each one has their own courtesy vans and 
quite frankly that opens up a can of worms. We have considered and 
we have discussed putting together a bus line that would service all 
of the hotels and although on the surface that sounds like a solution 
it created more busses, more problems because of the locations of the 
hotels... how often would they be served. As you know, now you have a 
hotel on Airport property, which quite frankly sets up a competitive 
situation. Many of the hotels feel that they have to keep up with 
that competition by sending their vans as often as they can in order 
to compete with the Hilton Hotel, who is one of our members. And we 
recognize that nothing can be done about that situation, nor are we 
recommending that anything be done about it. But a private bus line, 
or one that services all of the hotels, has been considered. At this 
time it has been rejected because it would not serve the purpose of 
reducing congestion. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Bill Hurtado of the Good 
Neighbors organization. 



Mr. Hurtado: I have been a driver for ground transportation now 
since 1986, the very first of 1986, and there was traffic congestion 
at that time at the Airport. A fee was raised at that time and it 
was stated that this fee would help reduce traffic congestion at the 
Airport. Apparently that wasn't the case. Now, another proposal for 
a rate increase has been made and I don't believe that it's going to 
reduce traffic. The traffic congestion happens because of the 
Airport Police not allowing on many occasions for the van services to 
pull into the pick up zones. When there are passengers coming out of 
the terminals the passengers aren't physically at the pick up point 
so the vans aren't allowed to pull up. The Airport Police blows 
their whistle. . .continue to go around. In that case they have to go 
around. You have many van services up there and if these vans have 
to go back around you're going back into the traffic. You have 
private sector people dropping off friends and relatives who are 
coming into the Airport and you have a big file of vans coming back 
around again. A rate increase, I don't believe is going to reduce 
the traffic. Some kind of proposal for allowing the vans moments, 
three to five minutes to actually sit at the terminals for these 
passengers to come out. Once the vans are loaded the vans are out of 
the Airport and that in itself will reduce traffic. I don't believe 
a fare increase is going to alleviate the traffic congestion. There 
are a lot of vans out there, there are a lot of passengers every day, 
but there again, if the vans have to continue to circle until there 
are passengers, that in itself creates some traffic problems. 

Another thing, adding the gate charge for the van services is going 
to put a heavy burden on the smaller companies who operate at a very 
small or no profit margin at times. That's going to hurt a lot of 
passengers that rely on Good Neighbors, especially. We have a lot of 
people that call us from the Airport and want to use our service but 
because they aren't physically at the terminal yet and we have to go 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 9 



around, other services solicit and take those people away from us. 
We lose a fair amount of business because of that. If we were 
allowed to stay there and wait for our passengers and not have to 
keep going around, that in itself would help eliminate a lot of the 
traffic congestion. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Brian Luterman, National Car Rental. 

Mr. Luterman: Good morning, Commissioners, my name is Brian 
Luterman, senior attorney for National Car Rental and we are an 
on-Airport concessionaire at SFO. I'm here this morning to speak in 
favor of the proposal put forth by Director Turpen and his staff. As 
Hertz has pointed out this is a relatively minor .. .(tape was changed 
at thi s point) . . . 

...and we think that the structure of this proposal is an especially 
logical one for this airport given the congestion problems that exist 
here, and, it meets a particular concern from National's standpoint 
and that is the ability to get our buses through the traffic and pick 
up our customers. That's a problem now as we all know. So, for 
those reasons we strongly support the resolution that's before you. 
Thank you. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Janine Reisbig. 

Ms. Reisbig: My name is Janine Reisbig and I'm in charge of Sales 
and Marketing for Good Neighbors Airport Shuttle and I'm going to 
speak on Item Fl , the fee hike. I've been in the ground transporta- 
tion business for a couple of years. I was a SuperShuttle driver, 
then I was a Good Neighbors driver and now I'm in Sales and Marketing 
for Good Neighbors. As you all know we've recently gone from being 
the "neighborhood shuttle service", operating west of Divisadero, to 
service all over town. In my travels as Sales and Marketing person 
I've talked to hundreds of travel agencies, visited a lot of hotels 
and I've found many, many, many loyal Good Neighbor customers all 
over town, both downtown, even in Herb Caen's office. His office 
assistant loves Good Neighbors and takes us all the time. We operate 
on a shoe string. Any fee hike threatens our existence and could 
deprive literally thousands of San Franciscans from their choice of 
shuttle bus services. 

As to the fee hike reducing traffic congestion, one of our drivers 
has already spoken to that. We are forced to go around many, many 
times. Often we can see our potential customers coming out -of the 
terminals but they can't run fast enough with their luggage to come 
and get us and so they think that we're ignoring them or something 
like that and then they get snatched up by other companies. 

My proposal is that the Airport Commission to reduce traffic 
congestion at the Airport, much of the congestion is provided by 
private operators. . .operators of private cars who are dropping off 
their friends. My proposal is that the Airport Commission should 
fund a postcard mailing to all San Francisco residents advising them 
of ways to get to the Airport other than driving their private car 
because these shuttles can carry seven people. Therefore, you can 
reduce the number of private cars carrying one individual by using 
the shuttles. This would reduce traffic congestion going to the 
Airport. 

Also, if we had a decent pick up plan worked out with the Airport 
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 10 



Commission that would allow us, as Bill says, to wait three minutes 
at each stop for people so that they can get a chance to see us and 
come and approach us, then we wouldn't have to make so many loops. 
Thank you, very much. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Willie Billingsly, Airport Passenger, Inc. 



Mr. Billingsly: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Willie Billingsly from 
Airport Passenger, Inc. in Stockton and the reason we object to this 
...I guess we're one of the furthest carriers and we service most of 
the airports in Northern California and naturally with this increase, 
we are already paying one increase already to the Airport Commission 
and this would create another financial burden on the carrier. We 
have to take into consideration a number of things. The distance 
that we travel, and naturally when you increase a financial burden 
then that financial burden has to be passed on to someone. Naturally 
we don't have anyone to pass it on to except the customers. We were 
talking about the congestion at the Airport and this is something 
that we're trying to eliminate. Fortunately, we've been working with 
a number of the travel agencies throughout the valley and there's so 
much that the companies can bear and at times when you get to the 
peak of a financial situation then you have to do something 
different. So, naturally we would object to this because of the 
distance that we have to travel and we have to take everything under 
consideration, including the bridge crossing each time, and this sort 
of thing. And, one of the previous speakers spoke about what some of 
the other airports are doing. I have done extensive traveling in the 
last few years and being in the business I make it my business to 
contact the other shuttle carriers at the airport just to find out 
what they are doing and I have not found as many restrictions in some 
of the other airports as we have at the San Francisco Airport. So 
this is one of the reasons that we are objecting to this because it 
would create a financial burden on a lot of the carriers that are in 
the outlying areas. Thank you. 



Commissioner Murphy: Excuse me, I have a question. How many trips a 
day do you make to the Airport? 



Mr. Billingsly: Approximately ... sometimes this could even run into 
four or five trips a day. 



Commissioner Murphy: Is that your average or is that your maximum? 

Mr. Billingsly: That would be the maximum. 

Commissioner Murphy: What would your average be? 

Mr. Billingsly: The average would be three trips per day. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Grace Hughes, Marin Airporter. 



Ms. Hughes: Good morning Commissioners. I'm here today to appear to 
speak to the proposal for an increase of operator permit fees. We're 
aware of the need for cooperative responsibility but feel the 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 11 



proposal, as it has been presented to you, would really impose an 
unreasonable financial burden on the operations of Marin Airporter, 
specifically. It would create an unreasonable fee increase on Marin 
Airporter specifically and really all the ground transportation 
operators in general . 

There are a number of issues regarding the computation of fees that 
concern us. For example, the roadway use, private auto allocated 
cost, and the underlying philosophy of ground transportation support. 
However, without belaboring those points, they really deserve a much 
more extended dialogue. I would like to propose a plan that I feel 
could address the question before us. 

It is my understanding that the AVI program is about to be launched 
and indicates a real possibility that revenues to the Airport will be 
increased with the initiation of improved monitoring and collection 
methods. I would ask that the imposition of any new fees be tabled 
for at least 90 days after the start of the AVI system and the 
results of the program then be evaluated as to the level of increase, 
if any, that might be negotiated. 

The staff has indicated in their presentation that you are concerned 
with another delay. I would ask that you consider that a delay of 90 
days would, in the long run, be beneficial to working out an 
equitable as well as less confrontational agreement with the 
possibility of substantial information being made available to all 
concerned. I would also ask you, Commissioners, to consider the fact 
that scheduled ground transportation services really do work to 
reduce Airport congestion in general, and certainly curb access in 
particular. In our case we carry over 300,000 passengers a year and 
that cooperation both in policy planning and financial assessment 
must be, and I assume you would agree, must be fair and mutually 
supportive. Thank you very much. 



Commissioner Murphy: May I ask a question? What is the size of your 
vehicle. 



Ms. Hughes: They are 47 passenger vehicles. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank You. Mr. Andy DePaule, Good Neighbors 
Airport Shuttle. 



Mr. DePaule: Thank you for letting me speak today. I have a couple 
of questions. Many things have been brought up at this mee-ting today 
which I had wanted to address but there is no need to keep addressing 
the same items. Particularly, I think the fees should be held off 
until the automatic counting process has been in effect for a period 
of time so we can see how many vehicle trips there actually are at 
the Airport. 

One problem I have with this is the new permit that we've been asked 
to sign. The problem I have with this is we have to apparently sign 
this permit before we can get these counting devices on the vans. 
I'm more than willing to have the device put on my vehicles but I'm 
not so willing to sign this permit which takes away a number of my 
rights. ..I believe constitutional rights. There's an item in there 
where my business, if I should drop dead right now, cannot be passed 
on to anybody in my family. The permit expires with me. Now, that's 
not the way I understand normal businesses. I doubt if any 
Commission members who had their own business would want to operate 
under this permit and some of the restrictions in it. 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 12 



There's another problem in that there's a request that we recognize 
that the Airport is private property. Now, I understand. . .1 know Mr. 
Turpen's view as that... I admire him, he does a good job there. I 
don't happen to think that the Airport is private property. The 
Supreme Court has gone both ways on it. I'm not a lawyer so I can't 
judge. But, to my view, private property is when you shut a roadway 
down for 24 hours once a year... you then have a private roadway. The 
fact that you just name it a private roadway and don't fill out the 
minimum requirements does not make it private. If a person were to 
go to the Airport, stand in the terminal and undress themselves they 
wouldn't be arrested for being naked in private, right? It would be 
in public. It's a public place. 



Mr. Turpen: Unless you did it on the roadway, 



Mr. DePaule: If you did it on the roadway would it be a private 
undressing? No. 

There's another problem. You have to dress at least as well as a 
taxi driver. I don't know what that is. I don't know if the new 
Commission is aware but you can lose your permit for not coming up to 
these standards. 

Vulgar language. The Supreme Court can't decide what vulgar language 
is. Mr. Turpen is allowed to. Now, I would probably agree with him 
on what vulgar language is but I still don't think that he, 
individually, should have that right especially to throw me out of 
the Airport because anybody who represents me may use what he or any 
other Airport official terms to be vulgar language. 

I wonder if we could go ahead and have the counting devices put on, 
hold up the signing of this permit until accurate counts are given. 
Also, we've asked for an accounting from the Airport to justify that 
the cost of that they say we are imparting on the Airport by our 
operations there is, in actual fact, a cost because what we have 
gotten is essentially a breakdown of cost but it doesn't give an 
itemized list. There's items in the cost such as building 
maintenance. We use no buildings at the Airport other than the three 
out houses in the parking lot. There are a lot of little things like 
that and I just think the thing needs a lot more time. I'm not 
opposed to paying a fee that's fair but I don't think a $1.00 is fair 
and I think that if the accounting were properly opened up to public 
scrutiny I think we would find that there's not the kind of cost 
related. 

There was one other thing that may be slipping my mind. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Take your time. I think you should have 
unlimited time. 



Mr. DePaule: I do feel that signing the permit is a form of 
coercion. We are being forced to sign this because if we don't sign 
it we simply do not operate after January 1. So that means we either 
sign away these rights that, without being a lawyer I feel I 
shouldn't be signing it away as a citizen. 



Commissioner Goosby: Haven't you signed permits before this? 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 13 



Mr. DePaule: Under the same circumstance, yes. When I started 
operating at the Airport we paid $300.00 a year, a bargain, I'll 
admit, for the right to operate. I went upstairs, I was sent to Mr. 
Ed Lanzilla. He wrote a note that nobody could read that essentially 
said give this man a sticker. I went downstairs to a lady named 
Eunice who has a big sign in her office that says you've got to smoke 
there. She issued me permits. Then, the new plan came in, which Mr. 
Stephens voted the 35£ on. We had no choice. It was either sign or 
don't operate. 



Commissioner Goosby: But you signed it, right? 



Mr. DePaule: Isn't that being forced to sign? We didn't get to sit 
down with anybody and hack out what the agreement was. We just 
agreed to the Airport's terms. This is the same thing again and it's 
taking more steps in the same direction of taking away rights that we 
have. That's what worries me. 

The only thing is there's a time limit on this. This is my last 
thing. We need to get our counting device between the 2nd and the 
16th of December, according to the time schedule. So that means that 
I have to have this signed and at the Airport by the 16th and all my 
vehicles tagged by then. If I don't agree to it by the 16th, which 
is only a few days away, then I have to wait until after January 1 
and an appointment period to get this done so that means that I could 
be put out of operation, as I understand it, until I agree to sign 
this, if I don't agree to sign it before the 16th. And it really 
hasn't gone back and forth nearly enough. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. The only problem is that I think 
Mr. Turpen is liable to take you seriously. Thank you very much for 
being here. Mr. Richard Pohl of the Good Neighbors Shuttle. 



Mr. Pohl: One of the costs cited in the reasons for the increased 
fee is the cost of the Airport Police who, from my position as a 
driver, their main function appears to be to force us to go around 
and around more times at the Airport and pay more fees. There is 
some purpose to what they're doing, that's for sure, but they 
definitely mainly seem to be there to make us go around more and pay 
more fees for circl ing. 

Also, I think that the fees that we have been paying... I think it's 
unbel ieveable that the map's down... in the Airport there's these 
guides that say how to get anywhere in the Bay Area on public 
transportation and nowhere on those guides are the shuttle vans 
listed. Nowhere in the Airport except in a sort of obscure way that 
says pre-arranged transport, or something like that. Pre-arranged 
transit, and little arrows maybe. Maybe a couple of those now but 
basically we're paying all these fees to the Airport and as far as I 
can see the Airport is not showing or telling anyone where to come 
and find our services, and that seems to be fairly odd considering 
the amount of money that we're paying to the Airport. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. David Birenbaum of the 
Ground Transportation Association. You're the attorney for them? 



Mr. Birenbaum: Yes. Commissioners this is a newly formed group 
consisting of a number of kinds of operators. We discussed a number 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 14 



of things today. I won't recover the area. The basic things that 
have been discussed are traffic, the contents of the application and 
cost. There is one thing that, for some reason, hasn't been 
discussed. I'm not sure if it's even within the purview of the 
personnel at the Airport. 

I think we owe it to the people who are there, who are operating 
these transportation facilities, we owe it to them to study the 
financial impact this move would have on them, whether it would cause 
them to go out of business or not. Some of these clients, some of my 
clients have been in operation for at least 28 to 30 years. I dare 
say at that time some of the present Airport Administration staff 
probably were in their mid-teens, 15 or 16 year old people at the 
time my clients were forging their way over dusty roads. Twenty-five 
years the Airport was torn up. We all remember that. That caused 
incredible traffic problems. Several of my clients were bringing 
their vehicles in at that time and providing transportation. They 
grew with the Airport. These are not people who are here trying not 
to pay their way. They have built a business. Their families depend 
on it, there are numbers of employees who would be put out of work if 
they go out of business. Nowhere has the Airport, in my awareness, 
studied the financial impact on the people who are there doing 
business now. Will they be permitted to stay in business? What does 
it mean for them to have to raise their fees to come close to the big 
five? For example, I represent a number of car rental agencies. 
They are on the Airport. They pay large fees, they enjoy many 
privileges for those large fees. As we get closer, as we have to 
raise our rates, what will that do to competition? Will it force my 
clients, many of them, out of business? The present Airport staff 
cannot tell you that for they simply haven't studied it. 

I would like to think that efficiency is one goal of democracy. 
That's only one. The most efficient forms of government are absolute 
dictatorships. We hope we don't have that. Another goal of a 
democracy, really, is to see to it that everyone benefits equally, 
properly and justly. And I would request that a study be made in 
addition to traffic, in addition to efficiency, a study be made on 
the financial impact on people who have families they're supporting, 
who've been in business for nearly 30 years, many of them, put all 
that into the hopper, mix that together and then come up with a 
plan. 

Twenty-five years the public stayed away from the Airport because 
there were horror stories. Those of us who remember the early days 
when they started the major reconstruction in the late 40' s you 
couldn't get into the Airport at times. It wasn't the fault of 
ground transportation operation. It was the fault of the Airport. 
The present plans still haven't been completed according to "the 
Airport master plan. There's going to be more construction. They're 
many reasons for delays. That's ony one factor. I would just 
earnestly request study the financial impact on the people who are 
there as well as traffic, as well as the contents of the application, 
as well as cost and not just try to do something because it sounds 
good. This has not been studied. This has not been properly 
studied. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Just a minute Mr. Birenbaum. Are there any 
questions? 



Commissioner Murphy: Yes, I have a question. Mr. Birenbaum, are you 
suggesting that for some users it might be appropriate to charge a 
percentage of gross revenue as a user fee rather than a fixed fee. 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 15 



Mr. Birenbaum: No. I am not sure, Mr. Commissioner, I'm not sure. 
I don't have the answers because like the present Airport staff, I 
haven't studied it either. I think that if it were studied properly 
maybe some kind of, I don't know. I feel something undoubtedly 
can... well, first of all, I'm not sure about the need. I'm not sure 
the need has been established financially. I have seen varying 
figures. I have read the Airport's financial statements for the last 
five, seven years. I have read traffic studies, such as they are, 
such as the traffic studies have been. I'm not sure what the need 
is. I'm not sure, for example, the Airport Administration can't tell 
you now what basis they're really using to fairly allocate this 
cost. The answer I have gotten or I've heard at meetings is we're 
using the same system we use to charge airplanes. Every time there's 
a landing we charge a fee. Something on that nature. That isn't 
necessarily fair. The vehicles that travel these roadways are of 
differing weights. They have different passenger loads. There has 
never been one study, not one technical study in this area. The 
Airport has provided no figures, despite the fact that my clients 
have asked numbers of times. I don't know the answer to your 
question. I'm not suggesting it at all. All I know is the entire 
thing should be studied. In the past I have reviewed numbers of 
studies that have cost the Airport a fortune. I have reviewed 
traffic studies, airplane transportation studies, very few of these 
were ever used. They cost the Airport a lot of money. One study 
that should be done is a study, an authoritative work on the impact 
on the businesses that have existed at the Airport for a number of 
years that have provided a valuable service to the Airport. Ten 
years ago my clients were desperately needed. Now they may not be 
needed so much but they provide a very valuable service. So the 
answer is I don't know until it's studied and I can't recommend that 
because I just don't know. But I don't think the Airport does 
either. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Birnbaum, you've made some very 
compelling arguments but I must correct one or two things. You give 
the impression that we go willy nilly, how do we make more money? 
And that isn't necessarily so. I've been on this Commission a long 
time and some fellow Commissioners here who've been with me and we've 
never acted precipitously. Studies have been made constantly and one 
of the reasons that we make studies constantly is that we find it 
very difficult getting the truth. I've often thought that there 
ought to be a sign somewhere along the line that reads, "San 
Franci sco Airport, where the truth is unknown." 

The Commissions I've been on in this City and particularly on this 
Commission, the last ten or twelve years, have always been 
considerate of those people that use the Airport and need it for a 
living and I wouldn't want that impression to go forward that we 
don't care. We've been in constant consultation as to how to do this 
thing and want to do what's right. Authoritative. I don't think 
there's an authoritative study on any airport in the world. There 
are studies but how authoritative in the context that you mean it, I 
don't know. But we are trying. But if you want us to give you the 
truth we can only give you the truth based upon the truth that we 
get. I'm putting this as bluntly as I can. 



Mr. Birenbaum: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, my comments were 
not meant to. . . 



Commissioner Bernstein: And I don't have too much of a reputation 
for hiding things. 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 16 



Mr. Birenbaum: My comments were not meant, not even inferential ly, 
to suggest that this Commission has displayed any kind of callousness 
towards the people that are there. I don't even think the Airport 
Administration is callous. I think the driving goal of the 
Administration of the Airport is efficiency, for which we used to 
give awards. I'm just saying I don't think... the Commission has been 
extremely considerate in the past, extraordinarily so. 

Commissioner Bernstein: I know, but I wouldn't want the inference to 
go forward about either this Commission or the employees. We've 
built $500-mi 1 1 ion of construction. It was a big, big business and 
there hasn't been one scandal in this Airport in 15 years. What 
there was 40 years ago I don't know. I used it 40 years ago, too. I 
know what you're referring to. But I don't think that there should 
be an inference that we don't care or that there's any other nonsense 
connected with it. I resent that very much. 



Mr. Birenbaum: Such an inference wasn't meant Mr. Chairman. So,.. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Staff makes studies all the time and for my 
$100 a month I put in enough time. 



Mr. Birenbaum: Mr. Chairman, the inference wan't meant. It's just 
that I have asked. . .there have been, to my knowledge, no studies at 
all made of the financial impact of this move on the existing 
businesses. That's all. I'm not saying this represents an 
indifference. I'm just simply saying that there has been no study 
made. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you very much, Mr. Birenbaum. The 
last speaker is Paul Grosz of the Yellow Airport Service. 



Mr. Grosz: Good morning. I'd like to cover a couple of things that 
haven't been mentioned here. This grounds been covered over and 
over. I'm currently the Director of Yellow Airport Service which is 
a pretty large van transport operator at the Airport and I kind of 
see these things in the day-to-day fashion and I just wanted to let 
you know how I see this and what's going to happen when and if this 
goes in just from an operational standpoint. 

First of all we're going to have to do less loops with each van. 
That's kind of obvious because it's going to cost more. So; we're 
either going to have to get more vans in order to continue to 
efficiently serve the public or, obviously if we don't buy them our 
competitors will buy more vans and one way or the other all of those 
people will get served, but by making us limit the loops my vans will 
leave with one person instead of with three, with four or with five, 
which is the first bad effect, which will financially force us to 
make the Airport more congested. We're all just going to have to buy 
more vans. 



Commissioner Goosby: Why will you have to make... if you're going to 
leave with one person instead of three because of this you say, 
because you're going to try to make fewer loops. 



Mr. Grosz: Unless we change our fare structure the loops will take 
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 17 



so much of the profit out that it will actual ly. . .the driver will 
have to leave with one because the amount he'll make if he only picks 
up the second passenger or doesn't pick up the second passenger on 
the second loop will actually make us be losing money if we don't 
leave with less passengers. But that's not going to cut down the 
30-million people who are going to come in this year, it just means 
we're going to have more vans doing one loop at a time. 

Now, there's a second problem there which also, I feel, hasn't been 
covered. I started out in the van business as a driver and I kind of 
still tend to see things that way. I know that leaving with one 
means I'm going to make less money. It means the same thing for 
every one of my drivers. Currently, the drivers that we have are as 
well dressed and as well mannered, in all honesty, as we can afford 
to pay and when the drivers begin to make less I just have a personal 
fear that what will happen is the general skill of my drivers and 
everyone else in this business will decrease because the pay level 
will have gone down. They will be looking for better jobs, the 
customers will get worse and ruder service, there will be more 
accidents, both for us and on Airport property and I really feel 
that. ..I obviously don't. ..it hasn't happened yet so I don't have the 
statistics in front of me but I am sure that what will happen is the 
Airport will just get tied up with more and more accidents. I'm kind 
of out of points here. 



Commissioner Goosby: How much do you pay? Do you know what your 
company now pays? 

Mr. Grosz: I know precisely what we pay, sir. We balance minium 
wage against commission. Drivers who make minimum wage do not last 
with us more than a few weeks. I would say as an average our drivers 
are taking down, for an eight hour shift, they're making about $75.00 
for a par-for-the-course driver, which is well above minimum wage. 



Commissioner Goosby: No, I mean how much do you pay in your 35£ 
charge for passing, how much do you pay in a month? 



Mr. Grosz: I would say it's between $2000 and $2500. It really 
depends on the month. It can go as high as, I believe, $2600 in one 
of the summer's busy months and can be considerably lower. 

My last point... this has been mentioned. . .but I would just like to go 
on record as saying that I would feel really bad about being forced 
to sign a blank check, as well. If nothing else, the studies that 
have been bandied back and forth that have been made or haven't been 
made, the AVI is going on this month... this would be the perfect time 
to have a pertinent study to the situation so I would like to go on 
record as asking for 90 days to see what the figures entail. 



Commissioner Goosby: We may make a decision today with some 
revisions which will clarify that and might make some of the things 
more pallitable to the industry. But, if we make that decision 
you'll know what you're signing. If you have some... I think I have 
some concerns. . .there are parts of that permit that offer 
some... (tape was changed at this point)... 

...let staff look at those to see if there could be some corrective 
language such as passing it onto your heirs or your parnter, 
whatever, I don't know. But I think that the Commission would look 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 18 



at that sympathetically. I don't think that that should be an 
issue. I think signing the permit... you know you're going to have to 
sign the permit because we expect you to fulfill certain obligations 
and that's our way of you expressing it and you make a commitment 
that you're going to follow these rules and regulations so that we 
have a certain... I don't think that there's any serious argument 
between us on that. If there's one or two small items that have to 
be adjudicated I think the Commission will look at those. 



Mr. Grosz: That's more than fair. In all honesty I don't know how 
all of these things work. I know how to run vans. I really came to 
speak for the drivers and also to ask for the 90 days, really briefly 
at the end, just to have time to figure out how I'm going to run my 
company when all this stuff changes because I'm just going to have to 
revise everything we do. I need the 90 days to stay in business. 
Thank you. 



Commissioner Duvall: Excuse me, can you tell me what your average 
passenger per vehicle trip is today. 



Mr. Grosz: I can estimate it but I certainly wouldn't want to swear 
in first. I would say we're probably right now running between 2.5 
and 4. Again, this is seasonal and this is averaged out over say the 
course of the month. 



Commissioner Duvall: Do you peak out at four? What's the capacity 
of your vehicles? 



Mr. Grosz: No. Again, depending. . .1 don't want to start dragging in 
all kinds of complicated things. I'm sure my business seems more 
complicated to me than it does to you. On a good day we're averaging 
six, on a bad day we're averaging one. We're averaging that. It's 
bal lpark. 



Commissioner Duvall: Okay, that's helpful. But, what's the capacity 
of your vehicles? 



Mr. Grosz: We have seven and 10 passenger vehicles but we're moving 
mainly to seven passenger vehicles for economic reasons. Thank you. 



Commissioner Bernstein: That's it. Any recommendations? 

Mr. Turpen: I look to the Commission for any thoughts or questions 
the Commission might have for either me or the staff. Our 
recommendation has been before the Commission at the public hearing 
and, of course, the intervening period. I know the Commission has 
studied it and would look to the Commission for any views or thoughts 
you might have or any questions that you might want to direct to us 
prior to continuing this matter. 



Commissioner Duvall: Well, I think one of the things that's very 
important for us to consider is the installation of the AVI and the 
importance of that information that not only the Airport staff but 
the Commission and probably, most importantly, the operators and 
particularly the management of the operators will learn as a result 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 19 



of the compilation of data. I do think that we probably want to 
amend the staff's recommendation before we... 



Mr. Turpen: You're talking about some type of delay or phase-in 
peirod or something. 



Commissioner Duval 1: I think we probably will. 

Commissioner Stephens: I know I'd like to see a reduction in the 
amount the staff is asking for for the time being. I think overall 
what my feeling would be is that I'd like to see what happens with 
the AVI and see what kind of count we've been getting from the 
people, I guess doing it on a volunteer basis in the past. I'm very 
much inclined to have us look at moving to some kind of a revenue 
sharing basis for the off-site rental cars. I think that some very 
good cases were made in the things that were sent to us to show that 
we're really not getting. . .the Airport's not getting its share and 
the off-site rental cars are not really paying their share when you 
compare it to what the on-site rental cars are paying. On the other 
hand I think it ought to be something scaled down somewhat. I think 
there certainly is an advantage to having an on-site... of having the 
position that Hertz has versus the position that an Alamo has but I 
think that they're a little far apart. 

I guess my suggestion would be that we move to either 60tf or 700 on 
the per head heading charge sometime after the first of the year. 



Commissioner Goosby: This three month moratorium that they speak to, 
maybe make it come or have the charges start in May, which would give 
you an opportunity to look at the electronic counting mechanism. So 
that in May... and to go along with the reduced charge which will 
cover their operations until the end of the year at which time we can 
go to the full $1.00. I think I would agree with both of the 
observations of both Commissioners and I think that also to have 
those... I have been concerned, even two years ago when we first 
passed this. To have a double system of charges for those people to 
have courtesy vans versus those who make their living carrying 
people. Roughly half the applicants, half the companies who do this 
might be served by having a certain number of passes, or heads as you 
call them, free per month so that they would have or which would 
hopefully give those operators who are providing more of a service 
than a professional movement of people, give them some advantage in 
that they would have a certain number of passes that would be 
free... 40, 50 or 60 per month. That would take the blunt or the edge 
off of the cost to them. Those are some of the comments that I would 
throw out. 

Commi sssioner Stephens: That would help the small businesses. 



Mr. Turpen: And before that, some type of flat, at least annual 
permit fee just to cover our administrative costs. 

Commissioner Stephens: Right. The big ones, the SuperShuttles, 
would pay the same permit fee as the smallest one would and both of 
them would get the same number of free trips around the Airport so 
that SuperShuttle would get just as much for its money as the other 
one would but for the small operator it would represent a smaller 
portion of hi s costs. 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 20 



Commissioner Goosby: And the cost per... but everybody pays a minimum 
per year registration fee, which I've heard suggestions of figures 
around $25.00 but I think that for 60 free rides, maybe that should 
be $35.00, $40.00 or $50.00 a minimum permit fee for everybody to 
pay. I think that can be looked at as you put the whole package 
together. $25.00 seems to be very reasonable. 



Commissioner Stephens: I also would like to see us, rather than 
establish a two-stage charge right now, or whether we go to 600 or 
700 now is to make the move to either the 600 or 700, and I'm kind of 
open... I guess if it were mine I'd probably say 600 but I don't think 
I'd argue with 700... is to go with 600. I don't see a reason to wait 
until May but that's also not another major point with me. But not 
to have it go automatically to $1.00, but if we're going to implement 
sometime after the first of the year I guess my preference would 
probably be to start it at the first of the year or shortly after 
that and then take a look at three things together. Take a look at 
increasing it to $1.00, take a look at the results of the AVI when 
that gets in place and look into some kind of revenue sharing basis 
with the off-Airport contributors somewhere along the lines of what 
Stapleton's doing, which I think is at about... my understanding is 
that our own airport pays 10. 



Mr. Turpen: Ten percent on Hertz. 



Commissioner Stephens: Is that we maybe look at something in the six 
to seven and a half for the off-Airport so that it evidences to the 
off-Airport people that the on-Airport purveyors pay a higher 
percentage although both of them are paying a percentage of revenue. 



Commissioner Goosby: So that they wouldn't be paying a per heading 
cost. 



Commissioner Stephens: That would be in lieu of. 



Commissioner Bernstein: We are at a continuing study of this thing, 
aren ' t we? 



Mr. Turpen: Well, we've been studying ground transportation for as 
long as I ' ve been there. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Have we come to definite conclusions? 



Mr. Turpen: From what the Commission has said let me offer a 
subtantive thought. I just checked with Angela and she's indicated 
to me that $25.00 would, in fact, cover our administrative costs of 
processing the permit. So, might I suggest the fol lowi ng. . . that all 
ground transportation persons would pay an annual permit fee of 
$25.00. Secondly, that we continue with the current rate structure 
through, I think Dr. Goosby said May 1, at which time it would move 
to 700, it was suggested, on May 1. 



Commission Stephens: Why are we waiting until May 1? 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 21 



Mr. Turpen: I was just trying to capture some of the thinking of the 
Commission. 

Commissioner Stephens: If we're going to do it, what's the theory? 

Commissioner Murphy: For what it's worth, my view is that there is a 
decent argument that a number of witnesses have made that we want to 
see how the AVI system works. This will also give people a chance to 
phase this in, adjust their businesses, figure out the impact on 
them, so it seemed to me a delay to May 1 seemed appropriate. 



Mr. Turpen: All right. I think from the standpoint of us taking a 
look at the results of the AVI output, if you will, in terms of what 
that is, I think that May 1 would be reasonable. Then, as I 
understand it, Dr. Goosby had indicated that next January 1, for 
example, go to $1.00 if the AVI system, the number of trips, the 
revenue generated based on our cost recovery warranted that as the 
number. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Where would you go on May 1? 
Mr. Turpen: 70£. 



Commissioner Bernstein: In other words, present rate until May 1. 
Then IQt until the first of the year and then $1.00, assuming that 
the studies show it. 



Mr. Turpen: For example, if our cost recovery number, just to take a 
number, is $1,000 for example and we find out that based on vehicle 
trips and reporting and just the system that we've had has not been 
real accurate and we find out that we're recovering back costs based 
on the number of trips, then obviously that $1,000 is going to be 
picked up much more rapidly and we won't need to go to $1.00 a trip. 
So, I think that the advantage of taking this step really is say, 
look, let's take a look at it in the next three or four months and 
think it over. 



Commissioner Goosby: But, we're going to vote the $1.00 now in the 
whole package. 



Commissioner Stephens: Why don't we just leave the $1.00 alone. Why 

do we vote the $1.00 now if we're saying we may not do it? Why don't 

we just vote on the 70tf, go to the 70£ and then after the AVI comes 
in, look at it. 

Commissioner Goosby: Would you have to have hearings again? 

Mr. Turpen: Yes. 

Commissioner Stephens: Would you? Let's do the $1.00. 

Mr. Turpen: As I understand it, one last time,... 
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 22 



Commissioner Duval 1 : Excuse me. I think it's important during this 
five month period that we are going to be looking at the AVI and that 
they're going to be looking, the operators are going to be looking at 
the AVI, I do think it's important that we structure into that period 
of time several meetings with appropriate representatives so that we 
are interpreting this information in the same way and we won't find 
ourselves in May with, as one of the witnesses pointed out today, two 
different definitions and two different interpretations of what will 
be very important information for us. 



Mr. Turpen: Nhat we can do is we can structure the billings on May 
1st... what we can do is structure the billings in two ways... we can 
send out a billing which would be reflective of what you would be 
paying after the rate increase and an amended billing to show what 
you'll pay under the current Commission dictate. 



Commissioner Duvall: I think that's appropriate. I also think it's 
appropriate though, for us to have some mechanism that will address 
the operational issues. One of the issues that was addressed by Good 
Neighbor Shuttle today is the activity or traffic enforcement 
technique, if you will, of the police. Now, I've stood out there 
myself and I have watched the behavior of the shuttle bus drivers 
that I thought was inappropriate and certainly not in accordance with 
what we all agreed that they would be doing. On the other hand, 
they're also working under some pretty tough circumstances in a 
pretty tough business. I would like to see that addressed head on. 
I would like for there to be some kind of a communication that will 
facilitate the operators, the management of the operators better 
managing their drivers and coming up with the dimunition of that 
traffic congestion out there by better management of the operations 
out there and by better interplay between the traffic enforcement at 
the Airport and the operators. And I'd like to see us address that 
head-on with some kind of a meeting and specific communication. 



Mr. Turpen: Let me just recap this resolution for the Commission so 
that they can act on it. One, that there will be a flat $25.00 
annual permit fee charged to all ground transportation persons. 



Commissioner Stephens: How many free headings do you get for that? 



Mr. Turpen: Dr. Goosby suggested 60 and I don't have any problem 
with that. 



Commissioner Stephens: Sixty a month? 



Mr. Turpen: Yes, 60 free trips a month, which i s ...( interrupted by 
comment from the floor)... 



Speaker: How about 200? 

Mr. Turpen: Well, 4000 would be good too, but I think 60 is fair. 



Speaker: How much room are you giving us at the Airport if you're 
giving us 60 loops. How much room do we have over there? 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 23 



Commissioner Stephens: Did the Commission agree on 60? 



Ms. Reisbig: As Ms. Duvall said, we need space to operate otherwise 
we have to keep making loops, especially when you're a little company. 

Mr. Turpen: The 60, it would appear, would probably cover about half 
of the ground transportation persons who make fewer than 60 trips per 
month, according to the sheets I'm looking at. So that appears to be 
a reasonable number. The proposal would be a $25.00 flat fee, 60 
free trips per month for everybody so everybody pays starting on the 
61st, that the rate would remain as it is until May 1. On May 1 the 
rate would go to 70£. The rate would then go to $1.00 on January 1, 
1990, and, we will come back to the Commission in May with two 
things. One is a summary of the activity in the first quarter based 
on the AVI system and how that impacts what we have done. And, 
second, following up on the suggestions of Commissioners Stephens and 
Murphy, on the percentage of gross review, as well. We will come 
back to you in May with our evaluation of that. 



Commissioner Goosby: Who knows, it might be that we don't go that 
high. 



Commissioner Murphy: One comment, simply that I want to stress that 
while I support the motion that's now been made, I am very concerned 
about revenue sharing for certain off-Airport businesses and, in 
particular, rent-a-cars. I think there are legitimate reasons for 
this that should be considered by the staff in reporting back, 
including the obvious one of maximization of revenue, but in 
addition, the recouping of lost revenue resulting from diversion of 
business from on-Airport concessionaires to off -Airport businesses 
and also, the elimination of the incentive to on-Airport businesses 
to move to off-Airport status to save money. I'd like to see all of 
those considered and brought to us. 



Commssioner Duvall: I want to be sure that my comments were 
understood by the operators in the audience. My concern is that the 
operations of these shuttle vans, in particular, I believe that the 
most responsive ones are here, that I believe that those operations 
need to be toned up. I believe that you can have much more efficient 
use of these access ways and can do a better job than what you're 
doing right now. And I don't want my comments misunderstood. That's 
exactly what I'm saying and that's where I believe that there needs 
to be some specific communication between the resources of the 
Airport staff and between the management of your company towards that 
goal . 



Commissioner Stephens: We need a second. 

Commissioner Goosby: Second. 

Commissioner Bernstein: We need a vote. Call it. 

The vote was unanimous to approve the amended resolution 

Commissioner Bernstein: I think this is the right move. 
Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 24 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Authorization to Receive Bids: 

Duty Free/In-Bond Concession Agreement 

No. 88-0206 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to accept bids for the Duty 
Free/In-Bond concession agreement. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that Duty Free's current lease expires 
in July, 1989. This item asks the Commission's permission to solicit 
bids. He said that 18 representatives of 11 companies attended the 
pre-bid conference. The most notable modification arising out of the 
pre-bid was a two-tiered system which would call for 15 percent of 
gross on the first $35-mi 1 1 ion and 20 percent on everything over 
$35-mi 1 1 ion . He felt that that was an equitable compromise and 
reaction to the concerns of the pre-bid conference participants. 



Authorization to Receive Bids 



California Products Shop 
No. 88-0207 



Mr. Turpen explained that only one of the two locations will be bid 
and the other location will be incorporated into the North Terminal 
Hub concession. 



Award of South Terminal Cigarette Vending Lease 

No. 88-0208 Resolution approving award of lease 

for South Terminal Cigarette Vending 
Lease to C.V. Ventures, Inc. 



Authorization for Pre-bid Conference : 
Lease of Gate 64 Newsstand 

No. 88-0209 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to hold a pre-bid conference 
for the lease of a newsstand at Gate 
64, Boarding Area E in the North 
Termi nal . 

Mr. Turpen said that American has agreed to relinquish this space in 
order to provide a boarding area newsstand/concession activity. He 
felt that this would be beneficial from a passenger services 
perspective as there is really nothing out there at this point. 

Commissioner Goosby noted that staff has suggested the Airport design 
and construct the newsstand so that the successful bidder, as a small 
business set aside, will be able to dedicate his capital to the 
purchase of additional inventory and equipment. He said that this 
suggestion demostrates staff's appreciation of the Commission's 
concerns and willingness to get small businesses involved in the 
Airport. 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 25 



Award of Contract No. 1017R : 

Expansion of Electrical Distribution System 

to Abbett-Yick, A Joint Venture 

No. 88-0210 This work is the second phase of a 

project to expand the 12 kilovolt 
electrical distribution system 
throughout the Airport to replace the 
deteriorated 4 kilovolt systems and to 
provide alternate electrical power 
sources where only a single source is 
avai lable at present. 

Lowest responsible bidder is 
Abbett-Yick, A Joint Venture in the 
amount of $3,975,740, including all 
alternates. 



7. Supplemental Appropriation Request 

No. 88-0211 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Airport was allowed to do this under 
Civil Service rules. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Commission agreed to a staff 
recommendation that this position be exempt and therefore cause the 
person who would be responsible for all concession activity to serve 
at pleasure. Staff prepared the appropriate request and 
justification. Mr. Turpen said that he made a personal appeal to 
Civil Service after they rejected that request. That appeal was 
rejected as well. Staff is requesting that the Airports Commission 
amend the salary in order to get the type of individual the Airport 
is seeking to come to San Francisco to head up the Airport's major 
business of concession development. 

Ms. Gittens explained that this position is the Director of Property 
Management which is the division at the Airport that handles all 
leases, contracts and permits. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Civil Service has this position listed 
as the Director of Property Management. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it has not been classified. It will be 
classified but the issue is the salary. A supplemental appropriation 
must be sent to the Board of Supervisors in order to reflect- the 
salary that Civil Service agrees the position should be paid. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that this is a key position. 

Mr. Turpen pointed out that this is a default position on the 
Airport's part. What we wanted was an exempt position. We felt it 
entirely appropriate that a person of this calibre and level be 
exempt. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the position title will be changed to 
reflect the position being filled. 

Ms. Gittens responded that she did not believe that would happen. 
She felt that this drab title reflects how this position is viewed by 
Civil Service. They see it as just as another position that 
supervises several staff, not recognizing the connection to 
$ 1 60-mi 1 1 ion in annual revenue. That is the problem we are having. 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 26 



Commissioner Goosby asked if Civil Service will allow us to have a 
supplemental appropriation to augment the salary. 

Commissioner Duvall asked Ms. Gittens to explain Civil Service's 
arguments against exempting this position. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Charter gives the Commission the authority 
to create Bureaus and Bureau Chiefs that are exempt. The Airport 
created the Bureau of Property Management with the Bureau Chief, i.e. 
Director of Properties for the Airport. That was rejected by Civil 
Service as they were concerned as to where this position was in the 
organization. 

Ms. Gittens felt the details should be discussed in executive session, 



Declaration of Emergency 

Contract No. 2158: 

Emergency Aviation Fuel Pipe Repair and Decontamination Work 

No. 88-0212 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring the emergency because of an 
aviation fuel pipe rupture near Plot 3 
and directing the Director of Airports 
to effect the necessary repairs. 

Mr. Turpen explained that staff is not certain that the cost might 
not exceed the $1 . 5-mi 1 1 ion amount. If necessary staff will return 
with an amendment. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Award of Contract No. 2065 : 
Airport Beacon 

No. 88-0213 Resolution awarding Contract 2065 to 

Abbett Electric Corporation, in the 
amount of $64,265. 



10. Award of Contract No. 2121 : 

Emergency Pavement Repairs - 1989 

No. 88-0214 



1 1 . Supplemental Emergency Appropriation, Contract No. 2130 
Upper Level Road, South Terminal 
Concrete Slab Repair 

No. 88-0215 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in author- 
izing a supplemental encumbrance of 
$133,500 towards the emergency repair 
of the upper level roadway adjacent to 
the South Terminal Building. 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 27 



12. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement - Alaska Airlines, 
Inc. - Modification No. 3 

No. 88-0216 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The public hearing was opened at 10:35 AM and closed at 10:50 AM, there 
being no further comments. 

13. Proposed Amendments to the Airports Commission's Rules and Regulations 

Mr. Turpen said that these are suggested changes to the Airport's 
Rules and Regulations. The Commission will take under advisement the 
comments heard today and render its decision at the next regularly 
scheduled meeting on December 20, 1988. 

Mr. Turpen said that the thrust of these changes is to eliminate the 
section in the Rules and Regulations concerning the self-reporting of 
individual trips and to reflect the Automatic Vehicle Identification 
system. The second part of this is to reflect the separation of van 
zones from a single zone into separate van zones as part of some 
negotiations staff has been having with the van companies in terms of 
how to minimize the impact of van operations at the Airport. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Birenbaum if he wished to address 
the Commission. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that his clients object to the permits, as they 
did the last time. He had specifically addressed this issue on 
behalf of his five clients. When they ultimately signed the permits 
last time they did so under protest, with a full reservation of 
rights. He said that their lawsuit was commenced in San Mateo County 
and settled in a peaceful disposition where his clients agreed so 
long as there were no material changes. They still reserve the right 
to challenge any issue or anything raised in their initial 
1 i tigation. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that one of the owners raised a couple of valid 
points. He said that the application form originally, and now as 
it's being incorporated into the rules, goes much further than 
traffic control, revenue raising and these objectives. There is a 
provision that if an owner dies, that is the end of the permit. The 
estate does not automatically take it over. There are provisions 
that if a company files a Chapter 11 proceeding and wants to 
reorganize the business under the bankruptcy act, that terminates the 
permi t. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that there are provisions which recognize that the 
Airport consists of private roadways. This was challenged in court. 
He said that he does not know the legal answers to many of these 
questions and that the Airport rules should be studied by counsel and 
divided into two parts. Those parts that have to do with legitimate 
traffic control, such as traffic regulations, and, those parts with 
revenues should be set aside. Another category of rules would go 
beyond that. Mr. Birenbaum said that the Airport can make the 
argument that they all really effect revenue and all effect control 
but the Airport is asking for an awful lot. His clients will not be 
able to sign the new application forms as they are currently 
presented. They will prepare a statement reserving rights and when 

Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 28 



they sign the permits it will be under protest. He said that he 
would never advise his clients to sign these permits in the present 
form without a waiver. 

Mr. Birenbaum told the Commission that the last time his clients 
settled, one of the key issues was the Public Utilities Commission. 
He said that he told the Airport then that this hadn't been studied. 
The Airport required a PUC license as a condition of the permit. He 
said that he told the Airport at that time that it couldn't do that. 
Yet the Airport responded. . .no PUC permit, no Airport license. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that this was odd considering the arguments the 
Airport made in several cases. He said that in the case that was 
commenced by Santa Rosa Airporter against the Airport, the Santa Rosa 
Airporter went to the PUC and got rights to stop in Marin County. 
The Airport told Santa Rosa Airporter that if they stopped in Marin 
County they would not be let into the Airport. In San Francisco, 
when the suit was commenced by the San Francisco Airporter, the suit 
claimed that the Airport breached its contract regarding the 
exclusivity provision. The Airport responded to the suit by claiming 
that it couldn't do anything about it because they did not have the 
power. Mr. Birenbaum said that the Airport has taken very 
inconsistent positions on this issue. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that the PUC question of concern was one of 
insurance. .. it would have driven his clients out of business. They 
settled with the Airport with the Airport agreeing to provisional 
permits and he could test the PUC issue out. He said that the 
Sacramento legislature ultimately saw things their way and a new 
provision has been added to code as of January 1st specifically 
exempting these kinds of operations from the PUC. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that there has been no definition by the Airport 
and no attempt to separate the legitimate financial and legal issues. 

Commissioner Murphy asked which provisions Mr. Birenbaum found 
offensive. 

Mr. Birenbaum responded that he did not realize that this would be on 
the agenda and he did not have it in front of him. He said he would 
be happy to send Airport Counsel a list of the objectionable issues. 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Birenbaum if he was suggesting that the 
permits should be assignable. 

Mr. Birenbaum responded that he felt that the permits should have an 
assignability provision and that the Airport cannot unreasonably 
withhold consent. He said that under the present leasehold" 
provisions the lessor can withhold consent, but not unreasonably. 

Mr. Birenbaum said that he disagrees with the Commission's basic 
right to control off-Airport business. The Supreme Court of the 
United States has only spoken in two major cases and the California 
Supreme Court has only spoken in one major case and one minor case. 
There is very little law on what is an airport. This Airport started 
in 1927 and was called Mills Field and then called San Francisco 
Municipal Airport. The concept of International Airport has never 
appeared anywhere in the code. The word "International" is used for 
the first time in the 1950s. He said that he does not know how far 
the Commission can go to affect off-Airport business. It's never 
been decided legal ly. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Pohl if he wished to address the 
Commission. 



Minutes. December 6, 1988, Page 29 



Mr. Pohl said that the rules indicate that the permit can be 
suspended or revoked for any violation but is vague as to how serious 
the violation would have to be. He said that within the last six 
months SuperShuttle had a company policy of tipping a skycap for 
bringing a passenger to a SuperShuttle van. That skycap received a 
voucher which could be redeemed for cash at the SuperShuttle office. 
When this was brought up to Airport staff, as far as he knows, a 
letter was issued to all companys indicating that this was not 
allowed. He felt that that policy basically placed skycaps on 
SuperShuttle' s payroll in order to deprive other companies of 
passengers. 

Commissioner Stephens told Mr. Pohl that this was not a forum to 
discuss specific infractions. Mr. Turpen handles those issues. This 
discussion must address reconstituting the rules. 

Mr. Pohl said that the section which declares that a violation of a 
rule will cause a permit to be suspended is vague. 

Mr. Pohl was also concerned with the section which would separate van 
companies into specific zones. He said that the pick up position a 
vehicle gets is currently regulated by chance. Those positions by 
the crosswalk are most desirable. Positioning of the zones would 
effectively put companies out of business if your company is in the 
wrong location. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Reisbig if she wished to address the 

Commi ssion. 

Ms. Reisbig said that the drivers are the company's best sales 
people. She said that she appreciated the Commission's concerns 
about wanting to establish a workable relationship. With regard to a 
permits revokabi 1 i ty, she said that Good Neighbor is owner-operated 
and if something were to happen to him she would lose her job. She 
said that she did not know if these other businesses are owned by one 
person. She said that even though their business is small they are 
very efficient. The day before Thanksgiving they were able to add 
150 referrals from SuperShuttle because their computer system went 
out. She said that Good Neighbors transported 500 people on 9 vans 
that day. 

Mr. Turpen concluded the hearing by saying that the Commission will 
take these comments under advisement and review the regulation before 
it makes its decision at the next meeting. 



I. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 30 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:50 AM to go into closed session. 



\Jaan Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, December 6, 1988, Page 31 



PROPOSAL 
TWO-TIERED PRICING STRDCTDRE 



The attached proposal reflects a 2 tier pricing structure 
for hotel courtesy vans. 



It is the object of this proposal to meet the Airport 
Commissions' desire to minimize congestion, increase roadside 
revenues, and still provide a high standard of service to the 
traveling public. 



The 2 tiered pricing ensures that no hotel will exceed 
the maximum trips allowed. 



o w 

z cu 

H O 

a o 

< J 

U w 

EH 





0) 






a 




U >i 





a 


<D (0 


in 


3 


D4T3 


• 







* — 


ij 


tt|«3 




en 


CM 00 


in 





« D 

W O 

& a 
w 
w 

H D 

a o 

E-t 03 



CO 

cu 

H « 

« D 

03 

SB 

D « 

X W 

m cm 








e 


6 


e 


Si 


£ 




(0 


cL 


Cu 




(0 













c 


O 













•l-l 


O 







in 





z 


U> 


Pm 


.-H 




r-H 






D 












O 


O 


O 


O 





O 


« 


4J 


-u 


4J 


JJ 


-U 


O 












« 


e 


e 


e 


e 




O 


• 


• 


• 


• 


4J 


O 


(0 


(0 


04 


a 


x: 


03 










CT> 
















•i-t 
















C 

-a 



01 


■u 




c 


c 




•H 


a) 




■o 




n> 


a> 


<y 


X! 


x: 


jj 


x: 


u 








(0 


«-l • 


H 


>1 




<1> (0 




-U TD 


• 


Itj 


to 


U 4-> 


CU 


m 





a» x: 





x: -u 


i-H 


4J 




u 


<N 


- 




£ «w 


U 


3 


O 


E CP 




•rH C 


CO 


X -H 


tj> 


03 T3 


C 


E (C 


•H 


a> 


•D 


0) x! 


(0 


x: 


0) 


-U u 


x: 


0) 




w a 


OJ 


>a 




<u 


w 


a> in 


■-( 


O • 


(0 


x 


3 


a> -ta- 


O 1 




a 


rn 




<U -U 


B 


4-) 


a 


w 


•H 


X! <D 


u 


0) 


-u • 


>i US 


- *-^ 


C 0) 


a 


(fl i-l 


a> -h 





c u 


14-1 c 


O -u 


M 


-l-l 



FT* F" T~\T FF" ^ PO- Box 109 - Fremont, CA 94537 

t Ul\ fflSr " (415) 791-7160 



^^ 



December 2, 1988 



Transportation Service 

PSC & TCP 1 126 P 



Airports Commission 

City & County of San Francisco 

San Francisco International Airport __- . „ 

San Francisco, Calif. 94128 DEC ° ^ QP 

Dear Sirs: 

From the time a 747 departs SFO until it arrives in Hong Kong it will consume 
more fuel and derive more revenue than our business will in one years time. 

In 1981 my wife and I founded the FUN Connexion, a regularly scheduled Airport 
Transportation service between Fremont-Union City-Newark to SFO International. 

During the past eight years we have survived the Air Controllers Strike of 
1981, the Reagan Recession of 1982-84 and the Great Insurance Ripoff of 1985. 

We now face another crisis! The AVI System and fee increase at SFO. Were it 
a system that could honestly help the operational problems of ground transpor- 
tation at SFO then we would have no complaints. However, neither the system or 
fee increase will address the honest problems facing the SF Int'l. Airport or 
the Ground Transportation Industry. Therefore, we seek the wisdom and assistance 
of the SFO Airports Commission. Please, do not approve the installation of the 
half million dollar AVI System or the proposed $1.00 trip fee as requested by- 
the Airport Staff. Instead, direct the staff to develop a long range plan that 
will decrease the traffic congestion and encourage the public to use mass trans- 
portation. 

As a scheduled transit operator we have spent 8 years trying to build up our 
volume so as to be able to increase our schedule frequency. Under the proposed 
rule that we will be able to make only one run through the terminal per schedule 
the result will mean many passengers will be left behind because they did not get 
theirbaggage in time and will have to wait two hours for the next bus. The 
results will be that they will have a friend or relative drive thenext time who 
will circle around the terminal aany times and create more congestion! 

Attached is a letter to the Ground Transportation Operators from Angela Gittens; 
Question #3 refers to charging fees to private passenger vehicles. Her response 
was that the parking rates derive $33 million annually for the Airport. However, 
the congestion does not come from the private vehicles that pay to park in the 
lots but from the private vehicles that refuse to park and just keep circling 
through the Airport Terminal ! 



FUN ^ m 



Fremont P.O. Box 109 - Fremont, CA 94537 

Union C 

Newark 



gpgg 



^m 



Transportation Service 

PSC & TCP 1 126 P 



She also states that the Airport roadways are not sufficiently large enourh to 
implement a private vehicle toll systen. Is the fact that the Airport \;as 
poorly designed justification to charge the private Bus Companies more r.onies.. 
Question --4 shews that the Ground Transportation Operators want to work with the 
Airport however, her response was to refer back to the same volur.e of Rules & 
Regulations. If the Airport Staff would work with the Operators we feel that 
together r. -nore efficient system could be found. 

As a scheduled transit operator we do not know the other operators problems and 
visa versa, however, by observing the Rules £• Regulations it is obvious that 
the bull: of congestion and problems ste~ from current upper level terminal 
operation. 

Vie appreciate your attention to this very impcrtent matter and know you will 
come to the proper decision. 



Sincerely , 



Black, Vice President 



korris H;erns~ein, Pres. 
Dr. Z.L. Goosby, V. Pres, 
Donald ?. . Stephens 
Sharon 3. Duvall 
Patrick. A. kurphy 




AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
ART AGNOS. MAYOR 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94128 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 
PRESIDENT 

DR Z L. GOOSBY 

VICE-PRESIDENT LOUIS A. TURPEN 

DONALD R. STEPHENS DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 



November 8, 1988 



TO: All Commercial Ground Transportation Operators 

FROM: Angela kittens 

SUBJECT: Response to Ground Transportation Operator Comments 



I have attached the response by Airport staff to the specific questions made by 
the Ground Transportation Operators at the meeting of October 28, 1988. The 
Airports Commission will be asked to approve the proposed $1.00/trip fee at its 
December 6, 1988 meeting. The meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. in Room 282 
of City Hall. 




la utttehs 
D eputy Director of Airports 
Business and Finance 



Attachment 

cc: L.A. Turpen 

Airports Commission 



TELEX 509520 
TEL.(415) 761-O800 SFO AIRPORT 






SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

RESPONSE TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION OPERATORS' COMMENTS 

OF OCTOBER 28, 1988 



1. "We should charge the On- Airport Operators the dollar per trip fee. Their 
buses cause a large part of the congestion problem." 

On- Airport operators are paying for their use of Airport roadways through 
the concession fees they pay to the Airport. The $12 million the Airport 
receives each year from the On-Airport rental car operators represents a 
payment for the use of Airport roadways, and the privilege of operating 
on- Airport. Airport staff is now developing a plan to eliminate on- Airport 
rental car courtesy buses. A new people-mover system is being planned to 
connect the terminals with the proposed new rental car structures. 

2. "More information needed to back up the $1.00 fee." 

"On p. 7 - How many people are included in the operations cost." 

Eight Airport staff members devote 100% of their time to commercial and 
courtesy vans. These staff members include 4 Police Officers, 2 Clerks, 1 
Account Clerk and 1 Management Assistant. 

"On p. 5 - Need a specific breakdown of costs." 

The Airport's Rates & Charges Report (Appendix A) for Fiscal Year 
1988/89 provides more detail on operating costs. A copy has been sent to 
the two operators who asked for this detail. Additional copies of the 
Rates & Charges Report can be obtained by calling Budget & Financial 
Planning at 876-2303. 

"Include specific information on revenue for tickets." 

The Airport receives approximately $400,000 annually from traffic fines 
and forfeitures. This is recorded as a revenue in the Ground 
Transportation Cost Center. 



G 



"Ground Transportation Operators think fees should be charged to private 
passenger vehicles." 

Full cost recovery has been achieved from private vehicles. With the 
recent parking rate increase, private vehicles pay $33 million annually to 
the Airport through parking fees. The cost of services provided to all 
private vehicles, including use of both roadways and parking facilities, is 
$31,473,112 annually. 

The imposition of a toll at the Airport is Impossible given the lack of 
space. The SFIA terminal roads are shaped in a U and are very short. If a 
toll system were implemented, it would back up traffic to the Airport and 
on the freeway. 



G 



-2- 



The operators want an operating plan from the Airport. They feel what 
we are doing is now inefficient." 

The Airport's plan for ground transportation is in effect and is reflected in 
the Rules & Regulations concerning loading/unloading zones, he adway 
restrictions, service descriptions, fines and fees. Any statistical 
information needed to understand our operations can be obtained from 
Lands ide. 



AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 
8939 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 408 
Lob Angeles, CA 90045-3690 
(213) 337-7721 

The Air Transport Association (ATA) represents virtually all of the nation's 
passenger and cargo traffic carriers. Our menbershlp makes up the largest single 
group of tenants at San Francisco International Airport. 

While I am unable to appear before the Commission on December 6 to comment on the 
business relationship between off-airport companies and the nations airports, I 
hereby submit the ATA' a comments. The keen interest of ATA and its airline members 
in the matter of Ground Transportation Fees 1b based on two factors — airport 
financial stregth and airline costs, 

MA believes that every entity doing business on the airport or deriving revenues from 
the airport should pay their fair share costs of operating at the airport. With 
respect to off-airport rental car businesses which compete directly with on-airport 
rental car concessionaires, the ATA supports the establishment of off-airport car 
rental permit fees based upon a percentage of gross revenues derived from airport 
passengers, as are imposed by some 40 U.S. airports including, in California, Palm 
Springs IX t Long Beach 8Z and John Wayne Airport 9% (the latter effective January 1, 
■89). 

The economic self-sufficiency of the San Francisco International Airport and similar 
facilities is largely the product of cooperation and interdependence involving the 
airport proprietor, the airlines serving ths airport and the businesses which compete 
vigorously for the opportunity to conduct business on the airport. 

Ihis system has worked well over the years. Nationwide, the revenues derived from 
the on-alrport rental car companies is seccnd only to public parking lot payments in 
the area of non-aeronautical revenue generated on airporte. The Airport Operators 
Council International advises that at the top 30 U.S. airports in 1986, the on- 
airport rental car companies paid the airports a total of $171,359,000.00 for the 
right to do business. 

The off-airport rent-a-car companies argue that they should only pay for the airport 
facilities they actually use and not pay on the basis of the business derived from 
ithe airport. If such a circumstance is allowed to prevail, there would be no reason 
for those rental car companies which traditionally do business on-airport to continue 
Co do so. 

3o businessman is going to pay millions of dollars in franchise fees when he can 
:onduct the same level of business for a fraction of that amount outside the airport 
)oundarles. Fees based on the actual usage principal would have an almost immediate 
md certainly adverse economic impact on the airlines and their passengers. 

The projected revenue derived from on-airport rental cars is an integral part of the 
complex financial tapestry necessary to underwrite the major capital projects re- 
quired to keep pace with the dramatic growth of air travel. Developing a scenario 
fhich would enable the traditional on-alrport rental car business to move with 
Impunity off-airport, would force airpor; proprietors to dramatically incerase 
lirline terminal rental and landing feels to make up for the shortfall. The magnitude 
of these increases are exemplified by one major Southern airport which stated that 



- mors - 



tO-'ST 8S. 



go :gq_ 



Ma. Jean Caramatti Page Two 

December 5, 1988 



the loss of Its almost $7 million in rental car revenues would result in a $40- — or 
182 percent — - per square foot per annum incroase in airline terminal rent or an 
increase of 75 cents — or 117 percent par thousand pounds In the landing fee. 
Increases of this magnitude must be passed on to the passenger. 

Real estate constraints at many major airports have forced on-airport rental car 
operators to bus to remove facilities. Our research further shows that the over- 
whelming majority of rental car customers for both on-airport and off -airport 
vehicles have a prior reservation. 

The on-airport rental car companies pay a vary substantial fee for the privilege of 
getting the first opportunity to serve the Infrequent walk-up rental car customer. 
Failure to establish off-airport rental permit fees at San Francisco could result in 
an off-airport movement by rental car companies who could be assured of being out 
of the economic grasp of the airport proprietor. 

The person who will be discriminated against is the rental car customer) who also 
happens to be an airline passenger, who will necessarily carry the burden of making 
up a very large revenue shortfall through a more expensive ticket. We urge the 
Commission to move forward to establish a resolution calling for a permit fee based 
on percentage of gross revenues covering off-airport car rental agencies doing business 
at San Francisco International Airport. 

Respectfully submitted. 



John Richard Hannan 

Western Regional Director 

of Government Affairs 

Air Transport Association 

8939 South Sepulveda Blvd., #408 

Los Angeles, CA 90045 



E"d 



20:£T 88. SO 030 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 2 5 1989 

".,^i ic ■ (boapv 



MINUTES 



DECEMBER 20, 1988 



ART AGNOS, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

DR. Z. L. GOOSBY 

Vice President 

DONALD R. STEPHENS 

SHARON B. DUVALL 

PATRICK A. MURPHY 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 
Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

December 20, 1988 



CALENDAR 
SECTION 



AGENDA 
ITEM 



TITLE 



RESOLUTION 
NUMBER 



PAGE 



CALL TO ORDER: 

ROLL CALL: 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
Master Plan 



3 
3 
3 

3-4 



ITEMS RELAITNG TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Amendments to the Airports 
Commission's Rules and 
Regulations 

Application for Variances from 
Noise Abatement Regulation 



88-0224 



88-0219 
88-0220 
88-0221 
88-0222 
88-0223 



4-14 



Approval of Additional Service 

Payment to the City 88-0225 

Award of Contract No. 1416D-R: 

Sunscreens for Boarding Area 'C 

to Super Sky Products, Inc. 88-0226 



14 



14 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



5. 


Retirement Resolution: 








Nathaniel Bishop 


88-0227 


15 


6. 


Retirement Resolution: 








Samuel Hawkins 


88-0228 


15 


7. 


Resolution Ratifying Personnel 








Actions 


88-0229 


15 



Award of Contract No. 1944<R): 

West Underpass - Rehabilitation 

of Drainage Pump Station 88-0230 15 



NEW BUSINESS: 

Commendation: 

Comm. J. Edward Fleishell 88-0231 15 

Commendation: 
Comm. Athena Tsougarakis 88-0232 15 



CORRESPONDENCE: 15 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 3 

14 

J. ADJOURNMENT: 16 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 20, 1988 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:04 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z. L. Goosby, Vice President 
Patrick A. Murphy 

Donald R. Stephens 
Sharon B. Duval 1 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:05 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:20 AM. 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
88-0217, modification no. 6 to the 
agreement with Morrison and Foerster, 
and, 88-0218, a settlement of 
litigated claim at the closed session 
of December 6, 1988. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the environmental impact report for the West 
of Bayshore property has been completed. 

Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, responded that the study was concluded about 
a year and a half ago and the recommendations from that study will be used 
as a basis for mitigation alternatives. Subsequent to that, a request 
came through about a week and a half ago from Fish and Wildlife requesting 
another opportunity to take a look at that area. Mr. Turpen said that he 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 3 



could not recall the specifics and would take another look at the request. 

Commissioner Goosby said that when the second and third hearings on the 
master plan are held it would be helpful if reference could be made and 
conclusions drawn as to the possibilities for that area. 

Commissioner Goosby reminded Mr. Turpen that resolution of the West of 
Bayshore was a high priority of the past administration. As runway 
relocation and alternative locations for rent-a-car facilities are being 
considered it would help make the decision-making process if it were all 
1n one package. 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

1 . Amendments to the Airports Commission's Rules and Regulations 

No. 88-0224 Amendments to the Airport's 

Commission's Rules and Regulations are 
being presented for adoption. A 
public hearing on the amendments was 
held at the Commission's December 6, 
1988 meeting. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this item is a follow up to the December 6 
publ ic hearing. 



The following is a verbatim transcript of Item No. 2. 

Application for Variances from Noise Abatement Regulation 

Resolutions granting or denying 
applications of certain airlines for 
variances from the Airport 
Commission's Noise Abatement 
Regulation. 

MR. TURPEN: The Airports Commission is well aware, having received a 
significant amount of material pertaining to this item, not only from 
me but from carriers that might be effected as well as members of the 
public, certainly the result of the hearings at the Airport and his 
findings, as well. At this time I think It would be appropriate for 
the Commission to hear from the public as to the recommendations that 
I've made and we'll go from there. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: All right. I have here some names. I'm 
calling them in alphabetical order so there's no idea of preference 
at all. Mr. Glenn Albos of Evergreen International Airways. 



MR. TURPEN: If you could, please state your name and affiliation for 
the record. 



MR. ALBOS: Yes. Glenn Albos, corporate counsel at Evergreen 
International Airlines. Just a brief statement on behalf of 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 4 



No. 


88-0219 


No. 


88-0220 


No. 


88-0221 


No. 


88-0222 


No. 


88-0223 



Evergreen. We find the recommended terms by the Director of Airports 
in his letter of December 15, 1988 generally acceptable to Evergreen. 
Our primary concern is with term no. 3 and it's mainly a clarifica- 
tion which limits the carrier to no more than five take-offs and five 
landings a week at San Francisco and our primary concern there is the 
unscheduled maintenance. If our aircraft positioned there has a 
problem and we have to bring in another aircraft or bring in another 
aircraft for unscheduled maintenance, that the Commission understands 
that that doesn't jeopardize our exemption. We do note that in the 
resolution there are some exemptions for maintenance but we wanted to 
state that position on the behalf of Evergreen. 



MR. TURPEN: Mr. Albos, to clarify, are you suggesting that you might 
have an aircraft on the ground in San Francisco that might require 
maintenance and neccessitate a sixth trip In? 



MR. ALBOS: That kind of exigency would be in that realm. 



MR. TURPEN: I believe, and I'd have to refresh my memory on it, but 
I call your attention to the regulation which I believe has a section 
concerning exemptions for emergencies which involves this type of 
thing. As well, there's a maintenance exemption section if this type 
of situation occurs and I believe the Commission is specific as to 
the actions of the carrier in these events which I think involves 
contacting the Director of Airports and advising the Commission. 



MR. ALBOS: That's correct. I understand that. Thank you, 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much. Mr. David Carbone of 
the Airport Community Roundtable staff. May I ask the speakers to 
try to limit to as short a time as possible. I know many of you have 
come a long way so I don't want to impose a time limit but we'd all 
appreciate it. 



MR. CARBONE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Mr. President 
and members of the Commission. My name is David Carbone and I'm the 
staff to the Airport Community Roundtable. I'm here this morning on 
behalf of our Chairman, Roger Chinn, and he'd like me to express the 
Roundtable's position on the variance request. I have a letter here, 
signed by Mr. Chinn that I will give to the Secretary (see attaced). 
If I can, Mr. President, I'd like to just briefly summarize and 
highlight the letter for you. 

On December 7, 1988 the Airport Community Roundtable discussed the 
status of the noise variance requests. Based upon considerable 
discussion by the Roundtable and input from the public, the 
Roundtable voted six to zero, with Mr. Turpen and Mr. McGovern 
abstaining, to recommend to the Airports Commission that it not grant 
any variance request from the five airlines involved. The granting 
of the variances now would further diminish the strength and 
integrity of the regulation and such action could set a precedent for 
other airlines to follow and diminish the credibility of the 
regulation and the Airports Commission. The Roundtable strongly 
urges the Airports Commission to deny all pending variance requests 
to maintain the integrity and strength of the noise regulation. Such 
action by the Commission will demonstrate its commitment to continue 
to reduce noise impacts from San Francisco International Airport. 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 5 



That's all I have, Mr. President. I have copies of the letter for 
you. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. John Demarco. There's no 
affiliation. Who are you with? 



MR. DEMARCO: I'm a private citizen. Can I speak? 
COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Of fine. 



MR. DEMARCO: I wish I could speak in a voice... My name is John 
Demarco, private citizen from Burlingame, and I wish I could speak in 
a voice as loud as some of the aircraft taking off from the San 
Francisco International Airport. The noise has gotten terrible. It 
certainly disturbs me, my neighbors, my wife, dogs, children. I know 
the Airport Commission wants to do something positive for everyone 
but on this particular issue I don't think there can be any 
compromise. No variances should be granted. Thank you. 



COMMISSIONER BERSNTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Paul Dinger of Northwest 
Airl ines. 



MR. DINGER: Mr. President, members of the Commission. Paul Dinger 
from Northwest Airlines, corporate counsel. I'm here today to speak 
in opposition to the recommendation of the Airport Director that 
Northwest not be granted its variance request from this noise 
abatement regulation. At the hearing procedure, and I'm not going to 
reiterate all of the facts as there's a record on that. But at the 
hearing, the hearing officer found the facts which I believe favored 
Northwest's request for a variance. Those facts were essentially 
that Northwest is making progress in an attempt to come into 
compliance with your noise abatement regulation. It is not intending 
to increase the noise level or the number of operations in the year 
of variance which it requests. It would maintain its current 
schedule and it would offer to reduce its take-off weights, the 
weight of the aircraft, so that all of its Stage II would be flying 
basically within, exactly within Stage III noise characteristics. 

We believe that the facts as demonstrated at the hearing show 
Northwest's substantial financial commitment to this community and to 
international Pacific air cargo business. We'd also point out that 
the Airport Director's findings or recommendations seem to fly in the 
face of the facts as found by the hearing officer. We're basically 
nonplused as to why, at this point in time, a recommendation would be 
forthcoming not to grant a variance that would have no impact except 
to maintain the current noise level at San Francisco International, 
in fact, reduce that noise level because it reduces take-off weights. 
And I would refer the Commission to the findings of fact that the 
hearing examiner made. 

The Director of Airports appears to take umbrance at the fact that 
Northwest wants to sacrifice the area residents here to the residents 
in the Tokyo area and the Director obscures the fact that Northwest 
Airlines and other airlines who make speak today really have no 
alternatives in that Tokyo market in terms of slot control. We do 
not exist, we do not do business in San Francisco inspite of the 
residents of this community. We do business here fully realizing 
that we're here for them and because of them. 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 6 



With that I would recommend to the Commission that it not accept the 
Director's recommendation with respect to the Northwest variance. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Kenneth Fredeen of Canadian 
Airl ines. 



MR. FREDEEN: My name is Ken Fredeen and I appear on behalf of 
Canadian Airlines International, Ltd. I am in-house counsel with the 
company and we are a company with head office in Calgary, Alberta, 
Canada. I have here today, Mr. President, a further submission. 
Before the Commission is a submission which we filed in response to 
the hearing officers findings and recommendations. We have, since 
that time, received the recommendations of the Airport Director and 
we received those late last week and we would like to file today a 
further submission in response to those recommendations because we 
feel that there's much in those recommendations that needs to be 
dealt with. And I would like to take this opportunity to file with 
the Secretary the further submission. (See attached) 

I had prepared a submission that was going to be lengthy. I would 
like to summarize that somewhat in light of your suggestion, however, 
I would like to highlight some of the concerns that we have. We have 
filed our submission to the hearing officer's report and on the whole 
we find it to be a fair review of the facts. We spent a considerable 
period of time at that time. We brought down people that knew how 
our operations worked in San Francisco, how we operated our aircraft. 
We also brought down a vice president who dealt with our fleet 
acquisitions, etc., and all of that information. It was a fairly 
lengthy discussion at that time and the hearing officer gave us a 
fair hearing and it was dealt with. On the whole we appreciate the 
comments made by the hearing officer. 

But I would like to refer to the recommendations of the Director of 
Airports. And first, just quickly, the first argument that was made 
was the argument and Canadian Airlines agrees that the 

length of the variance request or the number of operations requested 
is only one of many factors that should be considered and we ask the 
Commission to take that into consideration. We are seeking two 
operations per day in addition to the two that have been granted by 
the regulation and we are seeking. . .our variance request was for a 
period of two years and ten months, a date, I might add, that 
corresponds with our acquisition of a number of suitable stage III 
aircraft that will be used for this route. Secondly, we dealt with 
the review of the operations at the hearing only to bring to the 
attention of the Commission the fact that we operate our aircraft in 
such a manner that they are close to the stage III limits. 

However, a major conclusion reached by the Director of Airports was 
that Canadian Airlines had not taken bona fide measures to 
demonstrate its intent to comply with the regulation, and to this we 
object. Canadian Airlines is a relatively airline, formed through 
merger of four airlines on January 1, 1988. Since that time we have 
taken a considerable amount of effort to merge the four airlines and 
we've also taken very aggressive steps to acquire new aircraft that 
meet stage III. I might point out at this time, and 1t is in our 
submission that was presented to the hearing officer, that Canadian 
Airlines has committed to acquisitions in the neighborhood of 
$1.3-billion and a large portion of that is in respect to airbus 320s 
that our suitable for this route. 

The type of market is a high business component, and I won't go into 
detail, we dealt with that in great detail at the hearing and those 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 7 



recommendations can be found in the hearing officer's report. 

To, as the Director suggests, remove one of our stage III aircraft, 
and we have a number in our fleet, onto this route, is not economical 
and is not efficient. We have a number of large stage III aircraft, 
DClOs and also some new 767s. Those are used on transcontinental. 
To remove them from those routes and place them on this route would 
take them off of routes such as Vancouver/Tokyo or Vancouver/Hong 
Kong or Toronto/Rome which is neither efficient or economical. Our 
flights today are running at about 76 percent capacity. 

Now, there were a number of suggestions and we discussed these in 
great detail and I would like to highlight those to the Commission 
today. One is through the purchase of stage III aircraft. In our 
submission to the hearing officer we dealt with in great detail the 
steps taken by Canadian Airlines to acquire stage III aircraft. I 
might add that those steps were taken approximately six months after 
notice of this regulation was given and our commitments to purchase 
these aircraft are highlighted 1n the report. To date we have 17 
firm orders and options on a further 34. To bump those dates ahead, 
and I think the Commission is well aware because It has been brought 
to the attention of the Commission before, that it is difficult to 
acquire aircraft on short notice and we took steps, very shortly 
after this regulation and also after the merger date, to acquire 
aircraft, suitable stage III, suitable for this route. But we have 
bumped ahead those aircraft through the lease of eight airbus 320s 
for delivery commencing in 1991. Our application for variance was 
based on that date of acquiring those leased aircraft for use on this 
route. At the hearing we committed ourselves to using those aircraft 
on this route. We commence delivery of those aircraft in October of 
1991. 

Today we are prepared to say that, and this we have confirmed, that 
we would be prepared to commit a further airbus 320 in the year 1992, 
in the summer of 1992, that being the delivery date of another airbus 
320. 

Another option which was considered was the use of hush kits. At the 
time of the hearing we were relatively pessimistic, as most carriers 
with a fairly large 737 fleet are, about the possibilities of retro- 
fitting the 737s. We have recently been told by our operations 
people, one of whom was at the hearing and dealt with this in great 
detail, that in fact Nordham Pratt Witney Group is designing or 
prepared to proceed with the design development of the Nordham hush 
kits. Our information that we have is that these might be available 
for production and delivery as early as the end of 1990 for use in 
1991. Now, presently we operate 737s on this route, the Vancouver/ 
San Francisco route, and of course, as any other carriers are, we are 
interested in retrofitting our aircraft. Those aircraft would be 
used on this route. 

On that point, we are prepared to commit new aircraft, stage III 
aircraft, to this route and also, should the technology allow, 
retrofitted 737s on this route which would, in fact, lead to the 
conclusion that Canadian Airlines has, in fact 
exceeded. . .(interrupted by Commissioner Goosby) 



COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: In 1990, right? 



MR. FREDEEN: Actually, sir, 1991. That is in 1991. That is the 
basis for the request for variance. An important factor, and I'd 
like to conclude remarks on that part... an important matter which was 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 8 



not dealt with at the he 
Airlines has in respect 
treaty was f i led with th 
very short time span. I 
today, if the Commission 
And I think I would 1 ike 
that we are not suggesti 
section E28 and that was 
Director. What we were 
contemplated by the regu 
factors. Our argument u 
been expressed by the Ca 
the Secretary of State., 
it because I'm not sure 



aring was the special 
to its rights under a 
e hearing officer and 
was prepared to argue 
so wishes, because it 
to draw to the attent 
ng that we have met th 
the conclusion reache 
saying was that there 
lation and this is one 
nder that bilateral tr 
nadian Embassy, which 
.1 have that today and 
if that is before the 



status which Canadian 
bilateral treaty. That 
we dealt with it in a 

that in greater detail 
"s an important thing, 
ion of the Commission 
e requirements of 
d by the Airport 
are other factors 

of those other 
eaty is that. . .what has 
was passed on through 

I would like to fi le 
Commission. 



MR. TURPEN: Is that the statement that was sent a few days ago? 



MR. FREDEEN: From Mr. Griffiths. That is the actual diplomatic 
note. 



MR. TURPEN: Yes, I did and I also put that in the docket and it will 
be part of the record. 

MR. FREDEEN: Thank you, very much. I would only like to quote the 
fourth paragraph when the Embassy states that "...it wishes to advise 
the Department of State that the Government of Canada would view with 
concern actions by local airport authorities that would have the 
effect of imposing a capacity limitation on air services operated 
pursuant to a designation under the agreement." Our point is that we 
are competing on this route, we only have the one route into San 
Francisco. We are competing with an American carrier. We cannot 
augment our flights into San Francisco through domestic flights into 
SFIA. We are stuck with this one route and therefore it puts us at a 
competitive disadvantage. Those submissions are in detail in the 
three submissions which have been filed to date. The latest one 
being the response to the Airport Director's submissions. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, the regulation provides for progressive 
steps imposed upon airlines to reduce noise. We acknowledge that. 
But the regulation acknowledges that in certain circumstances a 
variance would be granted and it sets forth eight factors, all of 
which have been dealt with at numerous times. I won't go through 
them in detai 1 today. 

I would just like to point out that Canadian Airlines is a young 
airline which has aggressively expanded its fleet. It's a carrier 
designated under the bilateral agreement which affords It some form 
of special status which, it is respectfully submitted, should be 
considered by the Commission today. And that it is monitoring 
closely the acquisition of hush kits and those will be used on 
aircraft used on this route which will, in fact, put Canadian 
Airlines far beyond the requirements of the regulations. It has 
leased for delivery in 1991 the airbus 320, as I've noted and that we 
are prepared to commit a further stage III aircraft in 1992. 

Considering all of the factors and in light of the hearing officer's 
finding of fact, of which I've stated Canadian Airlines does not 
object, it has just provided a number of further points, it is 
respectfully submitted that the application for variance by Canadian 
Airlines should be granted. 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 9 



I'm prepared to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. 



COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: I just had one. Can I interpret your remarks 
to mean that your company is unable to lease or unable to buy... I 
know that the retrofitting won't be ready until two or three years, 
but stage III aircraft, you're unable to. . .you have some coming in 
1991. Are you saying that you can't lease or buy one for implementa- 
tion in 1989 or 1990? Because you can't get them or because 
financially you can't afford them? 



MR. FREDEEN: That very question was asked by the hearing officer, 
Mr. Commissioner. The answer to it in brief 1s that the one time 
acquisition of a leased aircraft is expensive, the one time cost to 
bring that aircraft on... fleet planning takes three to five years. 
Canadian Airlines has deemed the airbus 320 to be the best aircraft 
for use in this fleet. To lease an aircraft, if we could lease one 
and the evidence before the hearing officer was that there are not 
that many aircraft available. I recall that the counsel for the 
Airport suggested that we should acquire 727s and retrofit them and 
those were the only questions from the Airport at that time to us on 
the acquisition of aircraft. We suggested that that was not 
possible. To do that would be expensive. We'd have a couple of 
aircraft for a particular route that would lead to scheduling 
problems, etc. The earliest date for the acquisition through lease 
of an airbus 320 was 1991. That is the very earliest date and we... 
interrupted by Commissioner Goosby. 



COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: That's the earliest you could get one. 
MR. FREDEEN: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, the very earliest. 



COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I have one question. What are your load 
factors on your operations at present? 



MR. FREDEEN: They are, for the first nine months, 78.6 percent. 
COMMISSIONER MURPHY: On the San Francisco/Vancouver route? 
MR. FREDEEN: Yes sir. 
COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Thank you. 
MR. FREDEEN: Thank you very much. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Rex Maytan of the Postal 
Service. 



MR. MAYTAN: My name is Rex Maytan and I'm the General Manager of the 
Air Contracts Management Division in Washington, D.C. and contracting 
officer for about 90 percent of the airlift mail in the United States 
and elsewhere. I'm here today to voice sone comments in relation to 
the proposed legislation of the noise abatement as it effects one of 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 10 



our contractors which Is Evergreen. As you probably know, over a 
year and a half ago the U.S. Postal Service made a corporate decision 
to participate in the express mail market, and, which we consider to 
be in the best interest of the public who uses express mail. 
Specifically, I'm talking about express mail which is next day 
delivery and delivery by noon. This particular product line must fly 
late night, early morning hours and arrive at the destination by or 
before 7:00 AM so that we can effect delivery. If Evergreen is not 
granted a variance then they will not be able to fly into San 
Francisco without creating an economic burden for themselves and us. 
Our only alternative would be to fly into Oakland, in which case we 
would still not be able to make delivery and stay in competition 
because of the time it takes to get from Oakland to San Francisco 
area. We do not have a facility at Oakland to do the distribution 
and del ivery. 

I think it suits the public Interest for the U.S. Postal Service to 
stay in the express mail market. If we are prevented from doing so, 
just in the San Francisco area alone It could effect our entire 
nationwide market, and 1n which case the creation of an oligopoly or 
a monopoly and the express mail market would not be in the public 
interest. 

Consequently, my recommendation here is to urge granting Evergreen 
the variance so that they can become in compliance with your noise 
abatement restrictions over a period of time without creating an 
economic burden for them or for us. Thank you. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Herbert Rosenthal of DHL 
Airways. 



MR. ROSENTHAL: Good morning, Mr. President, my name is Herbert 
Rosenthal and I represent DHL Airways. We have submitted to you 
written comments on the hearing officer's findings and our thoughts 
on the Director of Airport's recommendation. 

We need a two year variance and the proposal of the Director of 
Airports will be satisfactory to us. We have a couple of comments on 
that and I think most of those problems are solved by other relief 
valves in the regulations. Like Evergreen, we may have an airplane 
here that malfunctions and we have to bring in another airplane to 
operate the flight. I believe there 1s basically the ability to make 
a telephone request to the Director of Airports office to get relief 
from that. Similarly, our maintenance base is here and we normally 
try to program our aircraft to fly into San Francisco on a scheduled 
basis so they can spend the weekend here for maintenance or overnight 
for maintenance. There may be an occasion that we would have to 
bring one 1n on a ferry flight. I'm told we're talking about five 
events a year which is hardly anything, but I do believe that there 
are relief valves for us in the regulations. We would also be 
pleased to work with the Airport Roundtable and we anticipate no 
difficulty in having a DHL representative present at most of those 
meetings. I hope someone would put us on a mailing list so that we 
would get notice of them. 

Other than that we think we can live with the Director of Airports 
proposal. If you elect not to adopt that then we need a two year 
variance. I have nothing further to state and I would be pleased to 
answer any questions you may have. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal 
Mr. Timothy Treacy of the San Francisco Airport Noise Committee. 

Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 11 



MR. TREACY: Good morning, Mr. President and Mr. Commissioners, my 
name is Timothy Treacy. I'm representing the Airport Noise Committee 
established by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County. We 
attended all of the variance hearings and made written presentations. 
We also have summarized our recommendations in a letter dated 
December 14 which we caused to be delivered to the Airport 
Commission. I hope that you received and distributed it. I won't go 
over the letter, I know that you'll take the contents of it into 
consideration. We have two conditions in addition to those proposed 
by Mr. Turpen, otherwise we support his recommendations. 

The first of those conditions Is that the carriers be required to 
make reports that would be made available for public Inspection. As 
I review Mr. Turpen's conditions I see that he Is opposing our 
conditions but there seems to be no way that we can monitor to 
determine whether, in fact, those conditions are being satisfied. So 
we would respectfully request that that problem be corrected by 
requiring the carrier to make some sort of public report. 

Secondly, we have a proposal 1n our letter of December 14 to require 
the airlines to fund a noise impact assessment of their operations 
pursuant to these variance requests. We think this is reasonable and 
we think it's about time the airlines start getting involved in 
seeking a solution to this horrible problem they've created for the 
residents of San Francisco and elsehwere by these overflights. So we 
hope that you will take that into consideration. 

Lastly, we did attend the hearings. We have no quarrel with the way 
Mr. Wharton conducted the hearings. They were done very fairly and 
we feel that the City Attorney's representative did an adequate job 
of cross examination, but you have no provision, and Mr. Wharton did 
not allow us to present sworn testimony nor conduct cross-examina- 
tion. We respectfully request that in future hearings that this be 
done. We feel that we have a lot at stake and we would like to 
participate fully in any hearing before the Airport Commission. Mr. 
Turpen, in his transmittal memorandum, references our testimony. In 
fact, we were not allowed to present testimony. 

Lastly, in connection with the comments of the Canadian representa- 
tive, at the hearing the hearing officer, Mr. Wharton, specifically 
excluded consideration of the bipartisan agreement and we're a little 
surprised and a little concerned at the kind of ad hoc nature of this 
preceeding whereby a representative can come in here at the last 
moment and make a plea to you based on this bilateral agreement which 
we were not allowed to discuss at the hearing. We stated at the 
hearing at that time that if that were to be an issue we would like 
an opportunity ourselves to review the agreement and address comments 
on It. On the one hand we're told that the residents of this area 
must bear the noise impacts so that the people of Tokyo, for example, 
can Impose a curfew and now we're told that we should continue to 
bear additional noise impact so that the people of Canada can have 
quieter over their skies. Somewhere along the line this problem is 
going to have to be addressed. Thank you. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Mark Young, citizen of San 
Francisco designation. 

MR. YOUNG: Good morning. My name is Mark Young and I'm a recent 
home buyer in the Noe Valley. Approximately one month ago I moved 
from the northern part of San Francisco to the southern part and 
immediately my wife and I went into shock at the airplane noise over 
our house. I've gotten Involved 1n the issue and I'd like to support 

Minutes, December 20. 1988, Page 12 



the letter written to you by the Airport Noise Committee, and, just 
from a more personal standpoint I feel like I'm going to have to move 
if something isn't done about this problem. Thank you for listening. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Mr. Herman Bliss from the 
Federal Aviation Administration. 



MR. BLISS: Thank you. I'm Herman Bliss and I'm manager of the 
Airport's Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific 
Region in Los Angeles. I'm here to provide a statement of the FAA's, 
Federal Aviation Administration, concerning San Francisco Airport 
Commission's variance policy. I have provided the original copy to 
Mr. Turpen and copies to the lady on my right. I have to apologize 
for coming late to your hearing but I wanted to admit that the delay 
was on the L.A. end and not on this end. 

Mr. Bliss read from a prepared text (see attached) and made no 
additional comments. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Bliss. Well, that completes 
the speakers. Anything you want to add Mr. Turpen? 



MR. TURPEN: I understand the views as expressed by the persons both 
pro and con. There's nothing in the presentations which would cause 
me to change my recommendation to you at this time. And, my 
recommendation continues to be as outlined for you in agenda item no. 
2. I'll be happy to try and respond to any questions the Commission 
has or follow any direction the Commission wishes to establish. 



COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: Have they received your letter explaining your 
recommendations. . .each of the carriers? 



MR. TURPEN: Commissioner Goosby, what happened was Thursday evening, 
simultaneously with the Commission's receipt, documents were trans- 
mitted to all those persons who were interested and were sent by FAX 
to the airlines so they were available to them on Friday morning. 



COMMISSIONER GOOSBY: They have all your reasoning and so forth, 



MR. TURPEN: We have shared all of the information with the effected 
persons that came to us. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Don, do we go into a closed session to 
discuss this? 



MR. GARIBALDI: If you want to consult with counsel on the matter 
then you certainly may. 



COMMISSIONER MURPHY: Yes. 

COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: I'm not prepared to vote. 

Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 13 



MR. TURPEN: The Airport's Commission has asked to converse with 
counsel on this matter and therefore I'll ask your Indulgence again 
if you would step into the hall for just a few moments. 



COMMISSIONER BERNSTEIN: Thank you. I'm sorry to do it this way, 
ladles and gentlemen. 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 10:03 AM and reconvened at 10:30 AM. 



Due to technical difficulties, no tape is available for the last ten 
minutes of the meeting. The following is a summary of the comments 
made. 

Application for Variances from Noise Abatement Regulation . . .continued. 

Commissioner Murphy expressed his concerns about placing Canadian 
Airlines in an economically unviable situation. He felt that 
Canadian was making a good faith effort to bring itself into 
compliance. He realized that they had no control over the fact that 
their order of A320s would not be available until 1991. He also 
accepted their reticence in not wanting to shift equipment from their 
transcontinental routes as that equipment is too large for the 
Vancouver/San Francisco route and would make the operation 
uneconomical and inefficient. He also said that he did not want to 
force Canadian into dropping flights into San Francisc. 

Commissioner Murphy concluded his remarks by saying that although 
Canadian made some compelling arguments and was impressed with the 
presentation, he would vote in accordance with the Director's 
recommendation with the understanding that staff would work with 
Canadian to help bring them into compliance. 

The Commission concurred with Commissioner Murphy's remarks and no 
further comments were made. 



3. Approval of Additional Service Payment to the City 

No. 88-0225 Resolution approving an additional 

service payment to the City of 
$830,998 for Fiscal Year 1987-88. 



4. Award of Contract 1416D-R: 

Sun Screens for Boarding Area 'C to Super Sky Products, Inc. 

No. 88-0226 This contract will provide a sunscreen 

system on the Boarding Area 'C 
skylight to reduce glare affecting the 
view from the FAA control tower. 

Lowest responsible bidder is Super Sky 
Products, Inc. for $160,300.00. 

Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 14 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were adopted unanimously. 

5. Retirement Resolution: Nathaniel Bishop 
No. 88-0227 

6. Retirement Resolution: Samuel Hawkins 
No. 88-0228 



Resolution Ratifying Personnel Actions 

No. 88-0229 Resolution, in accordance with the 

requirements of San Francisco City 
Charter Section 3.501, ratifying and 
approving certain personnel actions 
taken by the Director of Airports. 



Award of Contract No. 1944(R) 



West Underpass - Rehabilitation of Drainage Pump Station 

No. 88-0230 Resolution awarding Contract No. 

1944(R) to E. Mitchell, Inc., in the 
amount of $83,964. 



G. NEW BUSINESS: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Commissioner Goosby introduced resolutions commending former Commissioners 

J. Edward Fleishell and Athena Tsougarakis for their work on the Airports 
Commission. 

The resolutions was adopted unanimously by the Commission. 

No. 88-0231 Commissioner J. Edward Fleishell 

No. 88-0232 Commissioner Athena Tsougarakis 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 15 



J. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:40 AM. 



/Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, December 20, 1988, Page 16 




AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY 



December 20, 1988 

Honorable President and Members 
San Francisco Airports Commission 
P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Members of the Airports Commission: 

SUBJECT: Consideration of Noise Regulation Variance Requests 

On December 7, 1988, the Airport/Community Roundtable discussed the status of the 
noise variance requests received from Northwest Airlines, Braniff Airlines, Canadian 
Airlines International, Evergreen International Airlines, and DHL Airways, Inc. 
Based upon considerable discussion by the Roundtable and input from the public, the 
Roundtable voted 6-0-2 (Mr. Turpen and Mr. McGovern abstaining) to recommend to the 
Airports Commission that it not grant any variance requests from the above-referenced 
airlines. 

This recommendation is based on two points: 

1. The Roundtable and the public provided substantial input to the Airports Commis- 
sion regarding content and timetable provisions in the noise regulation, during 
its formulation. The final adopted version of the regulation was not as strong 
as prior drafts and did not contain many key elements that were supported by the 
Roundtable, many local cities, and the public. The granting of variances now 
would further diminish the strength and integrity of the regulation; and 

2. It is too early to allow variances to a regulation that has yet to be imple- 
mented. Such action could set a precedent for other airlines to follow and 
diminish the credibility of the noise regulation and the Airports Commission. 

The Airport/Community Roundtable is supportive of the Airports Commission's new noise 
regulation. However, we strongly urge the Airports Commission to deny all pending 
variance requests to maintain the integrity and strength of the noise regulation. 
Such action by the Commission will demonstrate its commitment to continue to reduce 
noise impacts from San Francisco International Airport. 




Roger Chinn/ Chairman // 

RC:DFC/kcd - K1E12729 

cc: Roundtable Members 

Louis Turpen, Director of Airports 



I.ANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 
DUNTY OF SAN MATEO 
!'0 HAMILTON ST., REDWOOD CITY 
(V 94063 (415] 363-4161 



NOISE MONITORING CENTER 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

P.O. BOX 8097 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94128 (415) 876-2220 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

December 19, 1988 



In the Matter of the 
Application for Variance of: 



) 



Response to 

Director of Airports 

Recommended Action 

on Pending Applications 

for Noise Variances 



CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL LTD, 



INTRODUCTION 

This submission is further to the Response filed with the Airports 
Commission and dated December 15, 1988 and deals specifically with the 
recommendations made by the Director of Airports ("Director") to the 
Airports Commission and contained in a memorandum dated December 15, 
1988. 



RESPONSE 



Canadian Airlines agrees with the Director's statement (page 2) that "no 
carrier should receive a Variance simply because its non-compliant 
operations are so few in number that they have virtually no impact on 
the noise environment". Canadian Airlines would agree with the 
dismissal of an application for Variance which simply relied on the 
argument of de minimus unless, on the balance, other public interest 
factors weighed in favour of the applicant. It is submitted, however, 
that the number of flights for which a Variance is sought is a very 
important factor to be considered by the Commission when deciding 
whether or not a Variance should be granted. By virtue 



of the Regulation, one factor which the Commission must consider is the 
noise impact upon SFIA and surrounding communities should the request 
for a Variance be granted. A request for a Variance to allow a large 
number of flights using Stage 2 aircraft and/or a request for a 
Variance for an extended period of time would contribute more to noise 
than an application for a small number of operations for a limited period 
of time. Furthermore, each application for Variance must be looked at 
independently of other applications as each Applicant will have 
particular circumstances which may or may not warrant the granting of 
a Variance. 

Canadian Airlines submits that a factor to be considered by the 
Commission is that its request for a Variance pursuant to Section 
4(E)(1) is for a limited number of daily operations (2) for a limited 
duration (October 30, 1991). It is submitted that the granting of the 
Variance as requested would have a negligible impact on noise at SFIA 
and the surrounding communities. This factor should not be considered 
in isolation but weighed with the balance of evidence submitted by 
Canadian Airlines pursuant to Section 4(e)(2). 

Related to the issue of noise is how each airline operates its aircraft 
into and out of SFIA. On this point, Mr. Gene Nimetz presented 
detailed evidence on behalf of the Company on the operation of its 
aircraft. Canadian Airlines operates its aircraft under conditions which 
make its Stage 2 aircraft only marginally noisier than some Stage 3 
aircraft. Again, this evidence was presented only as one factor to be 
considered by the Commission on the issue of noise under Section 
E(2)(a). 

Canadian Airlines objects to the conclusion reached by the Director that 
it has not taken bona fide measures over the past year to comply with 
the Regulation. To the contrary, evidence given through written 
submission and oral testimony at the Hearing detailed three main areas 
being pursued by Canadian Airlines (see pages 5-7 Canadian -Airlines 
Submission). With respect to an aircraft suitable for the San Francisco 



- 2 - 



- Vancouver route, Canadian Airlines has placed 17 firm and has 
options on 34 Airbus A-320 aircraft for delivery commencing in 1993. 
More importantly, in order to bring these aircraft into service at an 
earlier date, Canadian Airlines has leased 8 Airbus A-320 aircraft for 
delivery commencing in the fall of 1991. It is the commitment of 
Canadian Airlines to use these aircraft on the San Francisco - 
Vancouver route when delivered. The application for Variance to 
October 1991 was based on the fall 1991 delivery date. It is 
respectfully submitted that no other reasonable steps could have been 
taken by Canadian Airlines to comply with the Regulation through the 
lease or purchase of suitable Stage 3 aircraft. 

With respect to retrofitting the Stage 2 Boeing 737-200 aircraft of which 
Canadian Airlines has 66, the Company is committed to retrofitting these 
aircraft and is pursuing the purchase of Hush Kits. It is not expected 
that this technology will be available until 1991. The most recent 
information available to us is that as of the first of this month, Nordam 
and Pratt and Whitney have reached agreement supporting the 
continuing design and development of the Nordam noise suppression 
system. Certification for the Boeing 737-200 is anticipated for the fall 
of 1990 with production delivery by the end of 1990. Through the 
retrofitting of these aircraft Canadian Airlines would exceed the 
requirements established in the Regulation. 

Canadian Airlines recognizes the specific requirements of Section 
E(2)(h) and acknowledges that it has not provided "a statement, signed 
by the Secretary of State or by the Deputy Secretary of State stating 
the official position of the United States ...". Rather, the position of 
the Government of Canada so expressed by the Canadian Embassy in 
Washington, was forwarded to the Director of Airports in the form of a 
Diplomatic Note. The United States Department of State agreed to 
forward the Note to the Director of Airports. In particular, Canadian 
Airlines draws to the attention of the Commission the fourth paragraph 
of the Note. It is the submission of Canadian Airlines that the effect 



- 3 



of the Regulation on bilateral agreements between the United States and 
Canada must be considered by the Commission as one of the "other 
factors" contemplated by the Regulation in Section 4(e)(2). 

Canadian Airlines is the Canadian carrier designated to operate the San 
Francisco - Vancouver route and pursuant to the Air Transport 
Agreement between the United States and Canada dated January 17, 
1966 (the "Bilateral"). Under the Bilateral, the parties agreed to 
ensure equitable opportunities for the airlines designated to operate the 
route. It is respectfully submitted that a denial of Canadian Airlines' 
application for Variance would be discriminatory. Canadian Airlines is 
authorized to operate into San Francisco from Vancouver only and 
therefore it is not able to use U.S. domestic operations at SFIA in 
order to comply with the Regulation pending delivery of its smaller 
Stage 3 aircraft or the retrofitting of its Stage 2 aircraft. This leaves 
Canadian Airlines at a competitive disadvantage. Denial of the Variance 
would be discriminatory by effectively imposing capacity and frequency 
control through aircraft restrictions on a service provided pursuant to 
the Bilateral. The principle of equitable opportunity would be lost. To 
suggest that Canadian Airlines could comply with the Regulation 
through the elimination of one daily round trip ignores the special 
status afforded to the Applicant pursuant to the Bilateral. This issue 
should be considered by the Commission on this Application. 

Canadian Airlines agrees with the conclusion reached by the Hearing 
Officer that the elimination of one of Canadian Airlines' daily flights 
would harm the travelling public and submits that this conclusion is 
supported by the evidence placed before the Commission. Canadian 
Airlines disagrees with the Director that another carrier could increase 
its service on the route. No evidence on this point was placed before 
the Hearing. The U.S. carrier designated for this route has chosen to 
reduce service offered between San Francisco and Vancouver. Although 
the intentions of this carrier are not known, Canadian Airlines has 
shown a commitment to provide maximum service to passengers on this 
route. 



- 4 - 



For the first 9 months of 1988, Canadian Airlines operated its flights at 
a passenger load factor of 78.6% capacity. This represented a 
substantial increase (13%) over 1987. To suggest that Canadian Airlines 
"would have sufficient seating capacity on its other flights between San 
Francisco and Vancouver to carry all its customers" ignores the 
undisputed facts on the record and before the Commission. Two daily 
flights would not accommodate all of the passengers presently serviced 
by Canadian Airlines. Furthermore, numerous letters placed before the 
Commission in support of Canadian Airlines' application confirms the 
very real public interest in the maintenance of the three daily flights 
presently operated by Canadian Airlines. 

It is respectfully submitted that the first alternative suggested by the 
Director does not realistically reflect passenger traffic and their needs 
and the special status afforded Canadian Airlines under the Bilateral. 

The second conclusion reached by the Director is that Canadian Airlines 
could comply with the Regulation by employing one of its Stage 3 
aircraft on the route. A lengthy discussion on this point took place 
during the course of the Hearing. Mr. Statton presented considerable 
evidence as to why this was not a viable alternative. To briefly 
summarize, the San Francisco - Vancouver route has a high business 
component and a relatively short flying time which requires high 
frequency in the number of flights. Mr. Statton's evidence was that 
the market required a minimum of three daily flights with morning, noon 
and evening service. Operating larger Stage 3 aircraft in Canadian 
Airlines' fleet would not be economically feasible as it would operate far 
below capacity. Furthermore, the Stage 3 aircraft are presently used 
on long-haul international flights such as Hong Kong - Vancouver or 
Toronto - Rome. To reassign these aircraft onto this route does not 
acknowledge the economic realities of this market. This evidence was 
apparently accepted by the Hearing Officer. 

All of the above-noted arguments would not be persuasive if they were 
not considered in light of Canadian Airlines' aggressive expansion of its 



5 - 



fleet with Stage 3 aircraft. Canadian Airlines is committed to operating 
modern cost efficient aircraft which also meet environmental concerns. 
Canadian Airlines' efforts to acquire through purchase and lease Stage 
3 aircraft suitable for this route have been highlighted in this Response 
and were dealt with in detail at the Hearing. Using the Airbus 320 on 
the San Francisco - Vancouver route, Canadian Airlines will schedule 
two operations in October 1991 and again two more operations in June 
1992 in advance of the Stage 3 percentage operation timetable 
prescribed by the Regulation (Section 4(B)(1)(b)). Furthermore, with 
its large Boeing 737-200 fleet, Canadian Airlines continues to monitor 
the progress of Hush Kit development. It is Canadian Airlines' 
intention and commitment to comply with and exceed the requirements as 
set forth in the Regulation but requests a Variance in order to do so. 

It is respectfully submitted that for the reasons cited, the 
recommendations of the Director should be rejected and the application 
for Variance by Canadian Airlines should be granted. 



Dated: December 15, 1988 





lerre P. Roy 
Manager, Regulatory Affairs 
CANADIAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL 
LTD. 



C1/212LCL/L 




United States Department of State 
Washington, D.C. 20520 



KClSjfc 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 

P.O. Box 80997 

San Francisco, California 94128 

Dear Mr. Turpen: 

The Department of State has received a diplomatic note from 
the Embassy of Canada expressing its concern over the San 
Francisco International Airport Noise Abatement Regulation and 
the impact that regulation may have on the operations of 
Canadian Airlines International Limited. 

As requested in the note, the Department of State takes 
this opportunity to share with SFIA the text of the note from 
the Canadian Embassy. 

Sincerely, 




G. Gene Griffiths 

Director, Office of Aviation 

Programs and Policy 



Enclosure: 
As stated. 



Drafted :EB/TRA/AVP:GGr if fiths 
12/5/88 X77973 

Clearances :EB/TRA/AVP:CKauth 

L/EBC:SWitten (subs.) 
EUR/CAN:GDonahue 




(Cmt&fcutn ^mb&es^ ^^^^^ <^mbasBair fro. Cartaim 
No. 368 

The Embassy of Canada presents its compliments 
to the Department of State and has the honour to refer 
to the 1966 Air Transport Agreement between Canada and the 
United States, as amended in 1974. 

The Embassy of Canada wishes to inform the 
Department of State that the Government of Canada has been 
advised by Canadian Airlines International Limited (CAIL) of 
its intention to seek a variance from the San Francisco 
International Airport Noise Abatement Regulation, as is 
provided for in Section E of the said regulation. CAIL is 
the Canadian carrier designated by the Government of Canada 
to provide services on route F.2 of Schedule II of the 
Agreement (Vancouver-San Francisco/Los Angeles). 

CAIL has on order new aircraft which conform to 
stage 3 requirements. However, these aircraft will not be 
available until 1991. Furthermore, the Embassy understands 
that CAIL' 8 current equipment is very close to 
stage 3 requirements. 

The Embassy wishes to advise the Department of 
State that the Government of Canada would view with concern 

...12 



- 2 - 

actions by local airport authorities that would have the 
effect of imposing a capacity limitation on air services 
operated pursuant to a designation under the Agreement. 

The Embassy requests the Department of State to 
communicate the concerns of the Government of Canada to the 
appropriate authorities at San Francisco International 
Airport and to support Canadian Airlines International 
Limited's request before said authorities. 

The Embassy of Canada avails itself of this - 

* 

c 

opportunity to renew to the Department of State the ^ 

r. 

assurances of its highest consideration. o 

> 

c 

< 

tr 

T 
2 

z 

rr. 

z 



Washington, November 2, 1988 



Pn 


\ 


\\^ 


/ 



BEFORE THE 

AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Application of 

DHL AIRWAYS, INC, 
for a variance 



COMMENTS OF DHL AIRWAYS, INC. 

ON THE HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND THE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT'S RECOMMENDATION 



DHL Airways, Inc. ("DHL") has the following factual and 
legal comments on the November 18, 1988, recommendations and 
findings of the Hearing Officer. 

DHL has applied for a two-year variance from the 25% Stage 
3 fleet mix provisions of the Airport's Commissions' noise rules. 
DHL Airways also submitted a form of variance which would be 
acceptable to DHL Airways. (Exhibit 21.) The Hearing Officer made 
findings and recommendations that DHL receive only a one-year 
variance subject to a renewal application. 

While DHL will, of course, utilize that variance if it is 
issued, we want to go on record that we need a longer variance. To 
give comfort to the Commission's decision making process, DHL 
believes that, by the end of 1990, it will be in compliance with 
Section 4(B) 's 25% requirement. 

We have also reviewed the Director of Airports ' December 
15, 1988, recommendation to the Commission. His recommendation for 
DHL is substantially similar to DHL's proposal in Hearing Exhibit 
21. 



To assist the Commission in evaluating the recommendation 
of the Director of Airports, to help put our variance request in 
perspective, and to preserve our legal position in the event the 
Commission does not grant DHL adequate relief, DHL submits the 
following additional argument. 



I. EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 
HEARING OFFICER. 

A. Paragraph 23 

Generally the Hearing Officer prepared a balanced report. 

DHL takes exception to portions of paragraph 23 of the 
Hearing Officer's report. Conceptually, a series of de minimis 
variances each of which is individually insignificant, could have a 
significant cumulative impact. But the Hearing Officer had no 
factual basis to support the following statement: "...a series of 
de minimis variances, individually insignificant, will have a 
significant impact, undermining the regulation piecemeal. The 
family of pending variances must be viewed in this light." (Para. 
23. ) 

Only four carriers sought variances from Section 4(B) for 
a total of 8 take-offs and 8 landings per day. One of these 
applicants is allowed two flights per day under the unlawfully 
discriminatory "international de minimis " exception to Section 
4(B) 's percentage Stage 3 phasing requirements. Eight roundtrips 
per day more or less have no impact on the smoothness of the 
airport's functioning or upon the noise burden felt by airport 
neighbors. By adopting the worst case potential scenario emanating 
from multiple de minimis arguments without even attempting to 
measure the cumulative impact, the Hearing Officer committed error 
and encouraged the Commission to deny DHL's request for a two-year 
variance. "-* 



What are the facts? A review of the December 1, 1988, 
Official Airline Guide, North American Edition, Pocket Edition, 
shows approximately 486 transport category jet scheduled passenger 
arrivals per day. (We presume there are 486 take-offs as well.) 
This total does not include: all-cargo flights; international 
flights from Europe, the Pacific, or south of Mexico; military or 
government aircraft flights; corporate DC-9 ' s/B-727 ' s ' ; or charters. 
The actual number of landings must be 500-550 per day on the days 
DHL operates. 

During December 1988 and for the foreseeable future, DHL 
makes less than one landing per calendar day (as does Evergreen). 
Braniff makes three landings per day, and Canadian International 
makes three landings per day. These 8 landings are 1.65% of the 
total domestic landings and probably less than 1.5% of total jet 
transport landings on an average weekday at San Francisco. If 
Canadian International's two exempted landings are excluded, the 
operations for which a variance is required are less than 1.2% of 
weekday operations. DHL itself performs 0.2% of the total 
operations. Thus, individually and cumulatively, the four carriers 
with applications pendings are de minimis with respect to noise at 
the airport. 

Even if each of these four carriers is forced off the 
airport (Canadian International would, in the worst case, reduce its 
frequencies from three to two to take advantage of the 
discriminatory international exemption), these operations could 
easily and legally be replaced by Stage 2 aircraft operated by 



United, TWA, American, Delta, Northwest, or USAir. In this day of 
expanding frequencies, the termination of those four small users of 
SFIA will really produce no reduction in total aircraft noise. 1 
Other carriers are not frozen (and legally cannot be) to some 
historic Stage 2 level of operation. They can and will probably 
expand total operations using Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. Even if 
these 8 flights were replaced by 8 Stage 3 operations, the community 
could not perceive the different because Stage 3 aircraft generate 
noise. 

The Hearing Officer failed to note that those carriers 
which can comply with the 25% phasing rule can operate an increased 
number of Stage 2 aircraft at San Francisco so long as they meet the 
25% rule. This, of course, would aggravate the airport neighbors' 
claimed irritation far more than the continued operation of DHL's 
one flight a day, five days a week. 

This is especially so where DHL does not fly over the gap 
off Runway 28. The long haul, fully fueled flights need the 
straight out, slow climb departure. The Hearing Officer ignored 
DHL's unrefuted testimony on this point. Under the preferential 
runway agreement, DHL uses runway 1 for take-off and runway 28 for 
landing. Even when wind conditions require a runway 28 departure, 
our B-727-100 turns right towards the Bay before reaching Highway 
101. Put simply: residents of the gap do not hear DHL's aircraft 
flying overhead except in the most extreme weather conditions. 



1 United Airlines has just announced a two month frequent 
flyer bonus promotion for using SFIA or Oakland. United is 
promoting the use of its expanded frequencies in the Bay Area. 



Indeed, this clear possibility and most likely actuality 
suggests that the opposition to DHL's variance application is 
misplaced. It demonstrates that denial of the variance bears no 
rational relationship to the reduction of noise. So long as United, 
American, TWA, Pan AM, and others can increase their Stage 2 
frequencies, no purpose is served and no benefit is achieved by 
denying a variance to DHL. 

B. Paragraphs 27-30 

We also except to the findings in paragraphs 27-30. DHL 
demonstrated that it is not technologically feasible to retrofit the 
B-727-100 in 1989. We offered evidence that such retrofits are 
expected to be available in 1990 and that DHL would acquire such 
hushkits. Thus, the weight of the evidence supports a two-year 
variance. 



II. COMMENTS ON THE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS' PROPOSED CONDITIONS 

We have reviewed the December 15, 1988, recommendation of 
the Director of Airports. The conditions proposed are generally 
acceptable to DHL Airways. 

The limitation to five flights per week (condition 3) must 
have a safety valve to allow additional flights if (a) the aircraft 
positioned at San Francisco becomes unairworthy and another DHL 
operated or chartered aircraft must be brought in to replace it; or 
(b) an extra DHL B-727-100 is flown to SFIA for unscheduled 
maintenance. These are rare events. But we do not want to, and we 
are sure that the Commission does not want to, jeopardize our 
exemption should these exigencies occur. 

DHL Airways will be pleased to work with the Airport 
Roundtable. We anticipate no difficulty in having a DHL Airways 
representative present at the Roundtable meetings. 



III. CONCLUSION 

Having said all this, we want to remind the Airports 
Commission of the promises it made to members of the air cargo 
industry in the January 22, 1988, Supplemental Preamble (Supplement 
to the Statement of Basis and Purpose of San Francisco International 
Airport's New Noise Abatement Regulation.) 

Before we recite this to the Commission, we want to inform 
the Commission that there have been changes in technology since the 
rulemaking process of 1987. The Federal Express-Pratt & Whitney 
hushkit for the B-727-100 (the transport category jet used by DHL 
Airways) has received FAA approval that the noise characteristics of 
the aircraft, as modified, satisfy Stage 3 criteria. While it is 
beyond the Commission's province to delve into the FAA's 
certification of the aircraft as Stage 3, the data publicly released 
by Federal Express shows that the B-727-100, as modified, is quieter 
on all three measurements than the maximum allowable Stage 3 limits. 

The best information we have is that the hardware for the 
installation of these hushkits will become available in early 1990. 
DHL is negotiating with Federal Express and with Pratt & Whitney to 
obtain prices for both the Pratt & Whitney and the Federal Express 
components of the hushkit as well as estimates by Federal Express 
for installing the hushkits. DHL anticipates that our entire fleet 
of B-727-100 's will be converted during 1990 and 1991. Thus, 
without yielding on any of our legal positions with respect to the 
Commission's noise rule and its actions on our waiver application, 



it seems likely at this writing that DHL would not require a waiver 
for more than 2 years. 

Notwithstanding all of this, we ask the Commission to 
honor its commitment to members of the all-cargo industry which is 
set forth on pages 9-10 of the Supplemental Preamble: 

"Having said all this, the Commission 
recognizes that the regulation may cause 
some inconvenience to certain air cargo 
operators. While this inconvenience does 
not warrant the creation of a blanket 
exemption for the air cargo industry, the 
Commission nevertheless intends to be 
receptive to requests by cargo and other 
carriers for variances from its new noise 
regulation when individual cases warrant it. 
The Commission will be particularly 
sympathetic to variance requests when it 
believes a carrier is making serious efforts 
to comply with the regulation or when the 
carrier voluntarily agrees to adhere to 
SFIA's preferential runway use program, 
favoring the use of runways which minimize 
the noise impact of operations at SFIA on 
surrounding communities and residents. In 
the regulation adopted today, the Commission 
has included an operators willingness to 
adhere to the preferential runway use 
program as one of the factors that the 
Commission will consider in reviewing a 
variance request ... " (Emphasis added, 
footnote omitted] 

DHL Airways has done both of these things. It is using 
its best efforts and has signed the preferential runway use 
agreement. 



Respectfully submitted, 



Herbert A. Rosenthal 

HERBERT A. ROSENTHAL, CHARTERED 

2020 K Street, N.W., #350 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 785-9773 

Attorney for DHL AIRWAYS, INC. 



December 20, 1988 



sfo2 . cmt 



10 



STATEMENT OF THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

CONCERNING 

SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

VARIANCE POLICY 



San Francisco, December 20, 1988 



The Federal Aviation Administration appreciates the invitation 
to be here today as the Airports Commission considers pending 
applications for variance from the Commission's noise 
regulations adopted as Commission Resolution No. 88-0016 on 
January 22, 1988. 

My purpose today is not to take up the individual cause for or 
against any particular applicant's request. Instead, I wish to 
present the FAA's views concerning the regulation and the 
policy that the FAA urges be uniformly followed in dealing with 
all variance requests under Section 4 (E) of the Resolution if 
the Resolution continues in effect. Firstly, in view of the 
comments furnished during the regulatory process, the FAA 
respectfully requests that City and County of San Francisco 
suspend the 1988 Resolution pending the establishment of its 
justification as specified in those comments. 



2. 



In the event that the City and County of San Francisco is 
unable to do this, then the FAA urges it to adopt a policy 
favoring the issuance of variances under Section 4(E) of the 
Resolution until the Commission deals with comments filed by 
the FAA, during the Commission's rule-making process, 
concerning the lack of documented justification supporting 
Resolution No. 88-0016. 

Consistent with the responsibility of airport proprietors for 
the impact of airport noise on airport neighbors, the FAA 
recognizes that the adoption of reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory noise regulations by airport owners is within 
their authority where such regulations have been shown to be 
necessary to respond to a demonstrated noise problem and where 
the impacts of such regulation on air commerce have been 
adequately determined and weighed in the regulatory process. 
Three sets of comments filed by this agency questioned whether 
this essential justification had been established either with 
respect to the noise benefits to be achieved or the impact on 
affected operators. While some technical adjustments were made 
by the Commission in response to other comments, the FAA's 
comments concerning lack of adequate analysis have not been 
substantively addressed by the Commission. 



3. 



In this regard, comments dated July 27, 1987 in response to San 
Francisco's proposed Noise Abatement Regulation dated June 1, 
1987, (at page 1) stated that- 

[T]he current regulatory process has bypassed 
completely the kind of coordination and discussion 
between San Francisco and the FAA that existed in the 
period leading up to the adoption of [the 1978 noise 
regulations] .... [W]e urge the Commission to continue 
the practice of consultation and coordination rather 
than proceed with a predetermined timetable with the 
unsubstantiated product reflected in the July 1 
proposals. 

Because of the lack of substantive analysis and evaluation 

concerning the noise problem, the noise abatement effectiveness 

of the proposals, and the impact on users, the July 27th 

comments requested the City and County of San Francisco to 

"either withdraw the June 1 proposal or supplement it, through 

the Part 150 process, with the information needed to permit an 

informed technical and legal review." (p. 2). The comments 

also noted that the information void was particularly 

troublesome since the proposal itself stated that the 

Commission "cannot. . .provide further explanation of the draft 

at this time." (p. 2). Examples of the features of the 

proposal for which this void provided no support were set forth 

at page 3 of the comments. 



4. 
On November 6, 1987, the Commission issued a revised package of 
proposed noise regulations. FAA comments dated December 11, 
1988, (at pp. 1-2) in response to those proposals noted that, 
while some study had been done since the original FAA comments 
were filed 



[W]e must still conclude that much remains to be done in 
order to justify restrictions of the magnitude of those 
proposed. Our conclusion is that, if based on the docketed 
materials (that we were able to locate) , the proposals have 
not been reasonably justified on the basis claimed. We 
request that no action be taken to implement these 
proposals until adequate justification is shown to exist. 
We are particularly concerned that... the Airports 
Commission counsel stated that the Commission is "going to 
phase out Stage 2 aircraft long before the FAA gets around 
to doing it" ....This statement of Commission intent, while 
the comment period is open, heightens the concern we 
expressed in our earlier comments regarding possible 

prejudgment by the Commission Review of docketed 

materials disclosed only one technical report, the Ken 
Eldred Engineering Report (KEE 87-46) , which appeared to 
provide technical support for the proposed rules.... We have 
not been able to discern a technical relationship between 
that report and the Commission's justification for the 
proposed regulation. For example, the KEE Report refers to 
"noise contours prepared by the Parry Company specifically 
for the proposed regulation" (p. 5) . No such contours were 
found in the docket. The only contours in the docket were 
those prepared by Parry for the Noise Exposure Maps 
submitted to the FAA under Part 150 in 1983. Those maps are 
not accurate, current, or complete for the purpose of 
assessing the noise impacts of the proposed regulation." 

Examples of the inadequacies of the Parry contours were 
included in those FAA comments, (at pp. 2-3) which concluded 
that 

Because of this lack of pertinent data, it becomes 
particularly important to ensure that the regulation does 
not place unnecessary burdens on affected operators. 
However, the docket did not appear to contain any analyses 
of the impact of implementing the proposed regulation on 



5. 



aircraft operators, or any analyses of the marginal noise 
abatement benefits of imposing those burdens on those 
operators. .. .Our representative was unable to locate in the 
docket any information related to either the noise benefits 
or the economic impacts of the other aspects of the 
proposals. 

With this background, we advised, at p. 8 of our comments, that 

the proposals 

appear to place unknown and unanalyzed economic burdens on 
affected operators. As to individual operators who may 
need a variance, the burden here should be on the regulator 
prior to adoption of the regulation, not on the applicant 
after the issuance of a regulation that was not adequately 
studied, from an economic and noise standpoint, prior to 
adoption. This appears to pass through, to the applicant, 
the duty of the Commission itself to analyze and understand 
the noise and economic impacts of its proposals. 

(emphasis in original) . 

On January 11, 1988, revised proposed noise regulations were 
issued by the Commission. In response to that revision, the 
FAA submitted a third set of comments dated January 21, 1988. 
Those comments acknowledged that the revisions relaxed some of 
the impacts of the earlier proposals, but stated, (at page 1) : 

[W]e have, once again, searched the explanatory materials 
available to us, and must confirm our earlier concern that 
neither the noise benefits nor the air commerce impacts 
(including potentially discriminatory impacts) of the final 
proposal have been subject to the kind of detailed study 
and justification that is appropriate for restrictions of 
this magnitude. 

With respect to the impacts of the new regulations on air cargo 

operators, the FAA comments stressed that "[a] central concern 

throughout our comments ... has been the lack of a responsible 

analysis of the impacts of the proposals on air commerce, in 

relation to the noise benefits to be derived from the 



6. 



regulation. The concerns expressed by the air cargo operators 
only underscore the fundamental lack of substantiating 
information that the FAA has repeatedly requested and which has 
to date not been presented for informed review." (p. 2). 
Notwithstanding those comments, the Commission inexplicably 
concluded that the FAA did not join in the air cargo operators' 
concerns regarding economic impact. ( Supplement , p. 6) 

In addition to these concerns regarding the lack of 
justification for the regulation, the FAA, in its January 21, 
1988 comments, objected to the Commission's intended use of the 
variance process as a means of forcing compliance with SFIA's 
preferential runway use program. Thus, at page 2 of those 
comments, we cautioned: 

[T]he matter of compliance with preferential runway use 
programs is a matter of federal jurisdiction and control, 
and is intimately related to operational safety. Even where 
a formal runway use program is established by the FAA, the 
pilot retains the right to request a different runway, and 
ATC is authorized to assign a different runway if requested 
(see 14 C.F.R. 91.87(g)). This proposal to penalize an 
operator for deviation from a preferential runway is in 
direct conflict with this federally preempted area. 

While we are pleased to acknowlege that the final rule, as 

adopted on January 22, 1988, does contain some adjustments 

based on public comments, the fact remains that the adopted 



7. 



regulation does not respond to the FAA's concerns raised on 
three separate occasions regarding the fundamental 
justification for the regulation. The variance process still 
shifts, to the regulated public, the burden of justification 
that is and was properly the Commission's burden as the 
regulating body. Most unfortunately, the variance process is 
still framed to force compliance with the preferential runway 
system, which requirement, we must conclude in view of our 
strong protest to the Commission, is a conscious discounting of 
FAA's concerns regarding Federal operational responsibilities 
at SFIA. 

The explanatory material for the final regulation contains no 
substantive response whatsoever to the specific comments 
submitted by the FAA concerning the need to substantiate the 
noise problem, determine the noise benefits to be derived from 
the regulation, and assess the air commerce impacts of the 
regulation. 

The only references to the FAA's three sets of comments 
concerning justification for the regulation criticize the 
number of pages devoted by the FAA to certain issues and state 
that, because the FAA was not physically present at the 



8. 



regulatory hearing, the Commission was somehow prevented from 
"directly soliciting the FAA's views about the regulation." 
(p. 1, Supplement ) . It is very clear from this statement and 
the Commission's statement that it "simply cannot accept [the 
air cargo operators'] cost/benefit analyses," without 
developing a cost/benefit study of its own for informed public 
comment, that the Commission made its commitment to "phase out 
stage 2 aircraft long before the FAA gets around to doing it" 
without regard to the kinds of fundamental staff work needed to 
demonstrate the noise problem being addressed, the benefits of 
the proposed rule, and the impacts on affected operators. 

As a result, the Commission has effectively shifted the burden 
of demonstrating these bases for responsible rulemaking 
entirely onto the shoulders of members of the public who apply 
for variances under the Resolution. Section 4(E)(1) places the 
burden on the applicant to demonstrate both the noise impacts 
and the industry-wide economic impacts of deviating from a 
regulation that itself was not studied by the Commission from 
those standpoints (see Sec. 4(E)(2)). 

In summary, variance applicants under Section 4(E) are being 
reguired to submit a studied review of the effects of departing 
from unstudied noise and economic baselines — an inherently 
impossible task. 



9. 



In conclusion, the FAA repeats its request that the 1988 
Resolution be suspended pending the determination of its 
underlying basis. However, if the Commission determines that 
it is unable to do this, then the FAA requests that enforcement 
of Section 4(B) of the Regulation be suspended by January 1, 
1989 while the necessary justification is developed. If the 
Commission determines that this is not possible, then the FAA 
urges that a policy favoring the issuance of variances be 
applied uniformly to all pending and future applicants, and 
that the missing analyses be developed for public scrutiny as 
soon as possible. 



Respectfully Submitted, 



Herman C. Bliss 

Manager, Airports Division